That's basically it. It was just impossible for me to grab focus in that wedding and the camera hunted for minutes just to be able to focus for a few seconds to take a shot and then go back to hunting.
That's why I just do manual lenses :V
I've literally shot a few photos that I could not myself see.
I didn't think of getting the 35mm 1.8 because it's basically the same price as the fe lens here (600 cad). And from what I can tell isn't sharp at all until f2.8 (??) which kinda makes it a useless f1.8 lens. I was looking into the sigma 1.4 as well but I've heard it has focusing issues?
Sigma can't take advantage of the PDAF points with that lens; which is dumb because they have an adapter for EF to E mount that, when using Sigma lenses, apparently works very well.
When people say "It isn't sharp until xyz", tune that out, look for images taken at 1.8, and judge for yourself.
EVERY lens does that, some more than others. It's simple physics, a stopped down lens will become sharper. Some people will bitch that when you blow up a 4 pixel square to half your monitor, that it's slightly soft there. So find some 1.8 shots and see if you like them.
Hell at 1.8, you're trying to go for some DoF blur so who really cares if it's razor sharp?
The biggest reason the FE 28mm looks interesting to me is because if I ever get a full frame sony lens, at least I'll have a somewhat decent prime to start with and I wouldn't have to spend another thousand for that. I doubt sony plans on releasing any more apsc lenses so might as well decisions based on an eventual upgrade if I stay in their ecosystem
Very valid reason, to be sure, and is yeah one of the advantages of the Sony ecosystem. But also weigh in how much you could make back on one lens to buy the other, and how likely you are to upgrade to FF. Not everyone does, it's not a perfect panacea and like everything has it's pros and cons. Just a matter of what will work for you!
Basically I was thinking about it like this, if I'm spending 600 dollars on a prime lens. If the 18-55 on an xt20 gives me better or similar performance, why not spend a bit more and move over to that eco system. At least the future lenses I get will be somewhat cheaper and still very good.
The 18-55 kit lens will not get you anywhere near the same performance as the 28mm prime. Kit lenses are not to be compared to primes. Hell, in MOST cases, Zoom lenses in general aren't going to compare to primes. I can and have picked up a crappy 30 year old lens for $40 that shat on my Sony kit lens from a very high distance; and it was noted for being a "not as crappy as you'd expect" kit lens. (Funny enough, the 30 year old lens is also a 'kit' lens, but from a time when kit lenses were primes because zooms just kinda sucked)
Now, would an XT20 and a good 28mm prime do better than the A6000 with the kit lens? Almost assuredly. As would the A6000 itself with a good 28mm prime. But kit lens to kit lens, I'd struggle to ever justify any price, unless I just wanted the body that much.
Now, the XT20's kit lens appears to be 2.8-4, which is an improvement over 3.5-5.6, but it's not f2, nor f1.8.
But, if you're staying APSC, and you're fine essentially eating the upgrade cost and then getting another prime on top of it, by all means go for it. Fuji definitely cares more about APSC than Sony does. But if all you're gonna spend is $600, I'd just get the 28mm for sure.
Thanks again for your help btw.
No problem!
Keep in mind I don't like the Fuji 18-55 kit lens. It's usable but, if you're doing portrait photography especially in natural light you can see the short comings. The Fuji ecosystem have a lot of good affordable enough primes at least. If you want to go full frame then look into what you want from Sony's line up and keep in mind focal lengths get asinine at times.
IMO, kit lenses are just there to keep the sensor clean while you get a better lens.
