Need medium-wide Canon prime recommendation

[dlambert]

I've been playing around with nighttime cityscapes, and I can see a huge difference in sharpness between my 17-85mm USM and my 50mm f/1.8 prime lens (the 50mm lens wins, hands-down, in case you were guessing).

On my 40D, though, the 50mm lens is just not quite wide enough in a lot of cases, so I'd like to see what sort of options are available in something like a 20-35mm prime. I've seen the 'L' options in this range, and I just can't see dropping a grand on something in this range -- I've got way too many other lenses on my wish list for that.

Given the phenomenal bargain that the 50mm f/1.8 is, though, I'm wondering if there might be another solid option that's just a little wider. How about the 24mm f/2.8? I'm mainly interested in sharpness, followed by a low amount of barrel distortion and vignetting (in cases where I'm shooting panos). For my purposes, I don't mind stopping down a bit to get sharpness.

Any killer options?

[Preeb]

I know that you asked about primes, but if I were you, I wouldn't ignore the EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS. This is a zoom but your 17-85 isn't even in the same class with it. The 17-55 is sharp at f2.8, and rivals a prime at f5.6 or f8. It gives you wide with more flexibility than a pure prime. The only down side is that it still costs $1000.

[RichardTaylor]

I own the 17-85 (which hasn't been used for a couple of years) and the Canon 25 F2.8 & 35F2

I mostly use the primes for low light shooting (mostly wide open), and mostly on a 5D, and they meet my needs for web publishing and prints to 10x8. Definately sharper than the 17-85 although I havn't done any specific comparisons.

Have a look at the reviews here:

Canon Lens Reviews

[dlambert]

Thanks. I'm following the recent "prime lens for landscapes" thread, too -- looks like a similar discussion there. I'm intrigued by the 17-40 f/4. If it's of similar sharpness to the 50mm f/1.8, that might be a winner.

[sk66]

In the same vein as the 50 would be the 28mm f/1.8 or 35mm f/1.4. (probably the latter)
For the money of the 17-40 you could consider a 20-35 f/2.8. After that you are rapidly approaching 24-70 territory

[Preeb]

Originally Posted by dlambert

Thanks. I'm following the recent "prime lens for landscapes" thread, too -- looks like a similar discussion there. I'm intrigued by the 17-40 f/4. If it's of similar sharpness to the 50mm f/1.8, that might be a winner.

The 17-40 has shown itself to be more capable on a full frame than on a crop body. I had one for about 6 months, the sold it to buy the 17-55 f2.8. I get sharper images with the 17-55.