>>4282833>Not worth the marginal corner sharpness improvementsIt's not just that. It's easy to pick up for under $500 and the best 50mm f1.8 by a wide margin. There is a sony f1.4 that's about the same size, it costs over twice as much, and it is only "as good" at f1.8, so it's more a question of if you will even use f1.4 and shoot sony. The only better 50s throughout the photography world are f1.2s otherwise you are settling for "character lenses" without weather sealing.
Here are some "modern" 50 f1.8s. Of these, nikon's wins in basically every way
>The zony is less sharp, but more concerningly, suffers from severe bokeh fringing so any OOF highlights or backlighting can turn vibrant neon green. It's not weather sealed. Some of the worst copy variation ever recorded in a "professional" lens - a bad example of the ZA 55 is significantly softer than the average FE 50mm f1.8. Next step up is the f1.4 GM and f1.2 GM.>Canon's is certainly small, but it is not weather sealed, is way less sharp, and has way more aberrations. It's basically a DSLR kit prime on par with sony's much hated FE 50mm f1.8 - a character lens. Not a lens you shoot at f1.8 except for a dreamy, hazy effect. The next steps up are the ef f1.4 (not WR), EF f1.2 (soft old design, wr with filter), and RF f1.2 (very good but somehow vignettes more than everyone elses f1.2)>Panasonic's is the closest to nikon's in quality and features, and about the same size. It is slightly worse across every category, and cheaper.It's a similar story for nikon's Z mount 85. It's just way better than everyone elses and the only better lenses are pro f1.4 or f1.2 lenses that don't actually have a real professional application, since nobody fucking shoots f1.4 except tasteless youtube fucks. And a similar story for nikon and sony's 20mm f1.8 primes, nikon's kit zooms, sony/nikon's 135mms, and canon/nikon's slow UWA zooms (the EF 16-35 f4 IS L is STILL a baller). Best in industry.
>>4282907Lying and delusional
