Was that meant to be light? Yes, you do lose 1/\text{crop factor}^2 light given lens with the equivalent focal length but the same relative aperture.
I prefer to think of the equivalences using simple geometry. Eg a micro 4/3 sensor has a 2x crop factor, so a 25mm f/1.7 lens is like a 50mm f/3.4 lens on full frame, and creates the same amount of blur.
But in practice, wider lenses are always more expensive, so prime lenses top out at f/1.4–f/1.7, and zooms usually at f/2.8. So yes, practically, for the same kind of budget, more or less, you can get more blur with a full frame sensor than a crop sensor. But this is just a generic statement, there are so many kinds of lenses out there and third party manufacturers have become very aggressive with pricing primes, and recently zooms, which come in good quality.
As for the original topic: I learned that I need about 5000 shots to be friends with a particular focal length / angle of view. I find composition hard, and each new focal length I tried required different approaches. Because I am lazy, it is a good thing that I have primes, otherwise I would just have zoomed into my comfort zone, but I am glad I did not.
My favorite is still the 50mm (equivalent), but now I am comfortable with the 90mm too, including indoor and landscape shots. The latest challenge was the 28mm, so on a recent photo trip I forced my hand by leaving anything above 50mm at home and we are slowly becoming acquainted, but I have to admit that I still reach for the 50mm so I would have to leave that at home at some point 
I am currently coveting the Panasonic 9mm f/1.7 (18mm f/3.4 equivalent), so will wait until I am comfortable with the 28mm angle. I like hiking and some majestic mountains landscapes just need that kind of angle I think.