I have the a6000, with the 16-50, and 50 1.8 as my most commonly used lenses. I do have the sigma 30 2.8, but its a bit slow to focus. optically its very good. I love the 50 1.8, but I find it a little too long as a general purpose lens.
the 35 1.8 feels a little expensive for a crop 35 1.8 lens, being nearly twice the price of the 50 1.8. do you guys who use it really like it?
Just get it - it is pricey, but you will like this lens very much.
There are plenty of alternatives: you can get the very similar, but cheaper,
SAL35F18 on the LA-EA2 adapter with full EXIF and AF but you lose OSS and gain bulk. Or you can get the
Touit 32/1.8 which is arguably sharper with brighter colors. Or you can get the
Sigma 30/2.8 if you can live with the f/2.8 aperture - you do get incredible across-the-frame sharpness. The
Contax-G 35/2.0 actually does quite well also, and it can be had with an AF adapter. Or you can go manual legacy, e.g. consider the Voigtlander
Nokton 35/1.4 or the Zeiss
ZM 35/2.0. Or consider some of the
SLR lenses, either at f/2.8 or some of the f/2.0 lenses. Or, if you plan to go FF at some time, consider the
FE35/2.8, and accept f/2.8. None of the alternatives have OSS - you'd have to go to an ever slower zoom lens for that.
I have all of aforementioned lenses, as part of a quest to find that illusive 'best' 35mm for a while now, and I did post some side-by-side shots. Can I tell the difference between the lenses? Yes, I actually can - between some, not always all. Is the E35/1.8 the best of the bunch? No, not at all. But the OSS is a big factor (video, AF/focusing) and works very well in e.g. museums (static objects). Also, the E35 goes 'soft' at around f/2.2 and wider, which gives the lens a very nice application if you shoot people or want a softer bokeh - this little lens actually renders very nice wide open (but loses micro-contrast).
As to which lens fits the job the best? For sharpness, the Sigma 30 and the Touit 32 deliver, all the time. So do the RF lenses, in MF mode. The E35 is not quite at their level (e.g. consider micro-contrast) - but it is very, very close, especially when stopped down. For low-light, consider the Voigtlander 35/1.4 - it really is a great lens for people shots, even wide open (this lens also softens below f/2). For cost, consider the A35/1.8. Sure, you'd need the LA-EA2 adapter, but you can share this. The E35 renders actually very similar to the A35 - they are hard to tell apart. Best 35mm lens? I always picked the ZM 35/2.0 - it really shows best, even wide open - but it has poor bokeh. I shot a lot with this (early on, on the original Nex-5). Today, I would consider the Touit 32/1.8 a contender (for APS-C), but (AF) focus is not the same (yet).
Mind you, of all the lenses mentioned, asides the legacy SLR lenses, only the Sigma and the A35 actually cost less than the E35. Perhaps that should give a hint?
Everyone who got one, likes it. You can also consider the E24Z (wider, no OSS) or the E50 (narrower). but they are really just different focal lengths.
I found f/2.8 to be too slow for a general purpose lens, but ymmv. As to OSS, this is not a deal-breaker - I find it to be really only an issue if you shoot video and do not have a kit zoom lens.
A long winded answer to simply say - yes, I pick the E35 almost all the time when I go out with the A6000. But, unless you shoot portraits, I like the E24Z more when shooting indoors, just because of the slightly wider FOV. Since you already have the E50, this is another option to consider.
BTW - Your flickr stream has a shot of the moon. Its great - what lens did you use? -- 
