Originally posted by TER-OR Tamron's 90mm macro is well-regarded. I think Sigma does a better job these days, though.
A couple of the pancakes would be on my list. The 21mm gives you close to a "normal" view. The 70 is a mini telephoto. The 40 is least expensive, but pretty similar to your 50mm, and your 18-135 is pretty strong at 40mm. All are fun little lenses.
You're loving that 8-16 aren't you?
That sigma 8-16 is an entirely different species...
Sometime I don't even take pictures and just walk around my town with that lens on LV... See what the world looks like from 8mm rectilinear at all times. Makes my head hurt.
I've considered the FA31. I heard it has pixie dust in it or something like that? I hope that doesn't affect IQ
ahh decisions decisions...
---------- Post added 05-08-15 at 03:46 PM ----------
Originally posted by EarlVonTapia This is the only answer.
When I first started reading about all these lenses, I was hesitant about all the "hype" surrounding this lens.
Then I managed to snag one this past holiday season. The hype is true!
Solid sexy build, super sharp, even wide open. It is of a size and weight that won't constantly penalize you. No fussy lens hoods to deal with either. It's the perfect focal length on APSC. It excels in all situations (portraiture, product shots, event work, landscapes, travel, general walkaround).
It's pricey, but it will kill your LBA dead because it will replace so many lenses.
I wonder...
Could you live with one camera body and the FA31 alone?
I've heard soo much hype about this lens...
Perhaps it's time to start a new fund?
I certainly am not parting with the Sigma 8-16 any time soon.
But I guess I have been motivated to sell lenses I loved in the past...