Lens suggestion (another what lens should I get) Sorry!

Care to share why you got rid of it?

If you do anything that needs good corner sharpness then dont touch the 28 1.8, its one of the worst lens Canon has made for corner sharpness. Also the CA is poor at best. Check out some reviews before you even think about the 28 1.8 and yes I did own one for a while and you could notice the bad corners even on a crop. It also has a bad habit of halo type effect wide open outside. Yes the 28 is sharp in the center and the focus is fast. My copy had nice saturated colors but sometimes a bit to much.

I spent some time looking for a good lens in the 28-35 range ended up spending more then I wanted too on the S35 but it is worth the price. If you want bang for the buck then go with the 35 f2.

Considering trying out the 35 f/2 this FL seems good for portrait work

amfoto1 wrote in post #15635530
I know you mostly wanted to look at prime lenses, but for a wide angle you may want to make an exception and consider a zoom for the flexibility and versatility... I'd suggest the 17-40L. Good image quality, nice range of focal lengths, top build quality at a reasonably affordable price. I see a used one advertised nere in the POTN classifieds for $550.

Completely agreed with this. 17-40L is a nice lens to have

Varago wrote in post #15636746
If you do anything that needs good corner sharpness then dont touch the 28 1.8, its one of the worst lens Canon has made for corner sharpness. Also the CA is poor at best. Check out some reviews before you even think about the 28 1.8 and yes I did own one for a while and you could notice the bad corners even on a crop. It also has a bad habit of halo type effect wide open outside. Yes the 28 is sharp in the center and the focus is fast. My copy had nice saturated colors but sometimes a bit to much.

I spent some time looking for a good lens in the 28-35 range ended up spending more then I wanted too on the S35 but it is worth the price. If you want bang for the buck then go with the 35 f2.

imbillkamal wrote in post #15636955
Considering trying out the 35 f/2 this FL seems good for portrait work

I just got my 35/2 (the old one, non-IS) this morning. I have to say that after 100 or so shots, on a 60D, around the house, I am pleased with it. The only lens I have shot comparisons with is my 15-85. The 35 f/2 is sharper in the corners with both lenses at f/8. The 35 is better than I expected wide open. It is excellent from 2.8 down. DOF is a bit deep; you will need some distance to blur the background. I bought this lens primarily for a normal perspective on my 60D. The only downsides I can list are HUGE CA at f/2, and slightly buzzy AF, although not as bad as my 28 2.8. CA is a snap to touch up in LR4.x.

I don't expect to use it much on the 5D, and haven't mounted it on that body yet. If anyone is interested, I can get back on later with initial impression of the 5D/35 2 combination.

why wouldn't you use it on the full frame

imbillkamal wrote in post #15637499
why wouldn't you use it on the full frame

I may well do that. I just picked up my 5D in December. It is not my primary shooter, the 60D is. I wanted the 35 f/2 for a more normal perspective than I get with the 50 1.8 on APS-c. The 50 is a tad long indoors. I have used the 28 2.8 on the 5D and find it a bit wide for indoor birthday parties and such. It was a choice between the 35 f/2 and the 40 f/2.8. I just don't like the idea of 40's focus system. The camera has to be on for MF, what is that? That is just weird!

What exactly is your price range? Sounds like you want something both shorter and longer than what you have.

If you can hold off on the short end for a while, you could probably get a used 70-200 f/4 around $600. Great bang for the buck and excellent portrait lens.

Sure 35mm is a nice focal lenght on full frame. I feel it replace a whole 24-70mm lens and the perspective it create make everything dynamic without exaggeration.

Looking at your lenses, I think it's what miss the most. However if you are going with a f2 lens and not f1.4, might be better to get the Tamron 24-70mm f2.8 VC. More expensive but it cover 24 to 50mm with a fast enough aperture.

I don't think I'd want to get a zoom just yet, if I do it would be the 17-40 f/4
I was considering that zoom prior to this thread.

My budget is roughly 300$ not a lot but I can't break the bank on this one. I am considering selling either the 50 1.4 or 1.8 to help fund the new prime