I totally agree that, when real work needs to be done, one reaches for those tools with which he/she is so thoroughly familiar that the tool introduces absolutely no challenge to completing the task efficiently in as little time as possible.
My acquaintance with SF came via my exploration of Vegas Video in its early versions for video editing. In those days, Vegas includes a “video” version and an “audio” version. To my mind, the audio version was just the video version with the video turned off.
To a certain extent, I suppose I also looked at SF as a sort of Vegas Audio spin-off (I am certain that impression is not warranted, it’s just my impression).
I played with SF, but never really dug into it. To get real video work done, it became my habit to fire up Vegas. For intensive audio work and CD mastering, I always preferred Wavelab, and, tempting SF/Sony SF offers not withstanding, I just never could justify spending money on SF upgrades.
Vegas was always quite capable of burning CDs, but I always preferred Wavelab for that task.
In the old days, months could go by when Wavelab would not recognize my CD burner of the day. I knew all the work arounds, but, sometimes, WL would simply refuse to cooperate. In those instances, I knew that I could fall back on Vegas, as it never exhibited such a problem. Fortunately, those days are far behind me. New WL versions have given me no problems in this area.
As previously stated, I agree that the interface with which you are most familiar is probably the best for you.