I know, there's no real comparing the two, but I am crumbling under the pressure to buy a new lens.. and I can afford only one!
I like doing macro, for which I still have to use the Sigma 70-300.. Cumbersome and hard to get the focus right.. Plus portraits, again in favor of the 100 2.8
However,
I've also fallen in love with my 50 1.4. Walking around with a prime helps me actively think (and re-think) composition, and I REALLY love the sharpness, contrast, well, everything about this lens. But sometimes it is just too long... and what I've seen of the 31 ltd is pure magic.
So, should I go for the (nearly out-of-budget, and maybe out of the stores soon) 31 ltd, and save a bit longer for the macro, or should I go for the cheaper and also nice option of the macro, leaving me to use the 16-50 as walkaround lens just a bit longer..
Help?