12-07-2017, 12:28 PM
When I said "I shot with the 50 mm about 1/3 less than with the 35 mm" I think I did so to justify the purchase. In 2014, there was an Otus and this Sigma getting as best as possible - and for a long while no 85 mm Art in sight which I had been jumping on.
These days are different. You mentioned the Sony 55/1.8. 3 years ago, Sony was just trying to walk FF mirorless without breaking a leg. Today I would no longer buy into Nikon (and therefore not knowing what I miss in terms of usability). I agree to all what you said and I know a bit about, I can't say anything about Canon as I have zero experience with their DSLRs.
The 50/1.8 G would have been the better purchase. I was concluding "in earlier days, the f/1.7 f/1.8 always were and behaved sometimes like the cheapos, so I better get a decent f/1.4" Really wrong idea... :unsure: It was light, yes and it doens't stand a chance against the Art.
These days are different. You mentioned the Sony 55/1.8. 3 years ago, Sony was just trying to walk FF mirorless without breaking a leg. Today I would no longer buy into Nikon (and therefore not knowing what I miss in terms of usability). I agree to all what you said and I know a bit about, I can't say anything about Canon as I have zero experience with their DSLRs.
The 50/1.8 G would have been the better purchase. I was concluding "in earlier days, the f/1.7 f/1.8 always were and behaved sometimes like the cheapos, so I better get a decent f/1.4" Really wrong idea... :unsure: It was light, yes and it doens't stand a chance against the Art.