I’ve been going through my work from the past few years comparing the stuff from the 50-140 to stuff from the 90. Shot at the same locations, events, etc. And portraits. The results being that the 90 is very good. And so much easier to carry around. But I prefer the results from the 50-140 much more. Every time. So it is worth the pain of lugging around.It's big, it's heavy and you will be grateful for every painful moment you're carrying it. Yes, that sounded creepily masochistic. But we all pay a price to answer the muse.
I'm not sorry , it just saved me 900.00 . I have the Roki 12, Fui 16 1.4, 23 f2, 35 f2 on the low end plus the 18-55. That's covered, the 50-140 I need to get through High School with the Grand kids.The 18-55 is just such a stunning, classic design. I'm sorry. It does so much, so well, with so few trade-offs. I sometimes feel they shouldn't have made it so good, from a business perspective. It's like they don't know how to dial it back a notch.