OK so I have the 12-50 kit, which even though it's one of the "lesser" lenses I find it quite nice for a kit zoom. So I plan on getting the 45 1.8, no problems there at all. But for my other lenses I'm not sure what to do. 20 1.7 vs 25 1.4: -20 is slightly wider, I shoot with a 28 right now which equals 44/45 on FF, so it's right in the middle between 40mm and 50mm. I think I'd prefer it a tad wider -20 has slower AF -25 has that rattlesnake noise -25 can shoot in lower light and I hear the 20 bands in lower light -price is something I worry about since I'll need other lenses too 7-14 vs 9-18 (am I getting the Fl right on these?) -7-14 seems sharper, obviously wider but is heavier and can't take a filter -9-18 seems ok to me, but I want this for detailed landscapes and worry it's too soft, but I need a filter -lighter is always better for me too, but will take heavier if I'm getting something worth it 100-300 Not sure what to compare it to aside from lenses that don't go near the 300mm This one will have to wait since it's so expensive and I'd use it for birds, which I shoot a lot, but the others are more important for now. Anyone who has used both in a comparison which did you keep and why? I'd prefer the lighter ones, and the cheaper ones, but its it worth what I'm giving up with the "better" lenses. Of course if I can't sell my canon stuff, none of it matters, so yes budget plays a big part here.