I shoot mainly Landscapes, Architecture, and family photo's. I was planning on buying the Canon 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM to complement the lenses I have now (see sig) and probably use it as a "walk-around". The I did some research and it seems to be the consensus that Primes of a given focal length generally take better pictures and are usually faster than zoom lenses at the same FL.
I was wondering would it be better overall to have the three Primes listed under Option A below instead of the Canon 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM. I can get good deals on the primes used so the overall price will be $200 or so more for the three Primes but they're faster and the IQ is probably <shrug> better... I know that swapping lenses can be a pain but I'd probaly have the 20mm or 17-50mm Sigma on as a walk-around if I didn't have the Canon 10-22mm. When I look back at my "walk-around" shots it seems that I take a lot of pictures in the low 20mm range and the f/3.5 on the Canon vs the f/1.8 on the Sigma may be a limitting factor in uncontrolled lighting environments. Also, I'm thinking the 20mm f/1.8 may just work fine as a walk-around and not get swapped out too much unplanned.
So, I just thought I'd ask around here and see what you folks think -- Option A or Option B and "why" would you choose one over the other:
Sigma 10mm f/2.8 EX DC HSM
Rokinon FE14M-C 14mm F2.8
Sigma 20mm f/1.8 EX DG RF
Canon 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM