[Luny Tune]

That's quite a mouthful, long-story-state, Luny Tune.

Good luck wi it. The Tamron 45/1.8 was nothing to care about, as in "too big and heavy"?

I know. 

I totally get the need and reason for the big high end glass, but there's neither need nor reason for producing crappy cheap glass. If we could easily do with lenses that only resolves decently in the very middle, then what's the point of having focus points right out to the edges? I get that edge to edge sharpness isn't gonna happen with an $80 lens, but at twice the price of cheapest Canon, Sony should be able to come up with a better lens. Using the same optical formula as in the Canon, it's not like they spent a lot of money on R&D. Couldn't they at least have ripped off a better design? There's not much prestige in the cheaper lenses, I know, but it's sooo practical to have these "throw around" lenses. If you outgrow your nifty fifty, you pass it on to a new photographer, if you like it, you buy a second one and keep it as a backup, in your other bag or something. They gave us a (then) $250 lens that nobody wants. I'm sure that had it produced decent images, we could all live with it's other quirks, but let's not go there.

I love what I've seen from the Tamron 45, but it's only slightly smaller than the Sigma Art. It suffers som from CA, but once that's removed/mitigated in post, it makes some great images. The imperfect bokeh, I could live with, also for serious work. I was contemplating that lens, but having the Sigma already, I'm not gonna get the Tamron.

I want the "nifty fourtyfive", and I sooo hope that I'll be able to use it for serious work whenever I jjjjust can't back off far enough with the Sigma 50 Art. That happens to me a lot for some reason. I often find myself holding the camera almost against a back wall, juuust being able to look at the back screen and frame the shot.