>>3753283I cope by remembering it cost $1100, I’d have to pay double for 2.8 and would lose 35mm of focal length in the process, and would have to pay triple for a more worthwhile aperture (f/2) to make up for the loss of zoom.
Also what
>>3753286 said, except I have f/4, but on FF.
Last but not least I have plenty of 1.2/1.8/2 lenses for my film cameras.