30 f/2.8 or 35 f/1.8?

[TheKinkajou]

So I've decided I'm going to pick up the a6000. I'm keeping my 16mm f/2.8, and I'm going to supplement it with a "normal" lens.

I was first looking at the Sigma 30mm f/2.8. It's sort of fast, and not stabilized. But the price is great at only $199.

Then there's the Sony 35 f/1.8. It's faster and has OSS as well. Though much costlier at $450.

Ultimately, I'd like a wide to normal/short tele f/2.8 zoom. This just doesn't exist for E-mount though. So I can get the cheaper lens as a placeholder until this exists, or I can go with the reality that what I want doesn't exist and may not exist for quite some time.

What would you do?

[Anbesol]

Sorry it seems nobody has responded to your post, and its almost a month out and you probably already figured out what you want to do, but in the interest of others viewing this thread I'll answer.

Well f/2.8 is extremely slow for such a focal range. The only benefit to the Sigma f/2.8 is the extremely compact size and the lower price. The lower price is sort of mitigated by the fact that you will be getting an f/2.8 zoom and will have the 35mm range in that, so really the compact size is the only benefit. For image quality, and to get that really shallow DOF and low light ability the Sony 35mm f/1.8 is the superior choice. That one also won't be a redundant addition to your lens range, offering the uniquely wider aperture, being 1.3 stops faster is quite significant. The only reason I would consider the 30mm choice is if compact size was a specific need for me, otherwise the 35mm f/1.8 hands down. It makes an excellent portrait range and as such the 1.8 is extremely valuable.

[TheKinkajou]

Thanks for the reply. I ended up getting the 35 f/1.8 a couple weeks ago as it went on sale for $50 off. I'm really happy with it so far.