Most versatile prime for a 20D?

Which focal length would be best for a walkaround on a 20D? The 30, 50 or 85? I know the 30 is expensive but the 50 1.4 and the 85 are reasonable.

for walkaround, if i were to have only one prime, it would be a 30 1.4 sigma (well actually the 35 1.4L.. but i dont have the money haha)... dont have it myself but hear good things. the 50 1.4 is a fine lens, no doubt, but its a bit to long sometimes, and thats definitly true for the 85 1.8

Sigma 30mm f1.4

50mm 1.4 without a doubt. I've been loving it since my 24-105 has been in for repair. If you manage to frame a shot, it gives great results time and time again.

Superb.

IMO.

I have the 50mm and I find that it's a little too long for my own personal tastes for a walkaround - I find myself backing up frequently for shots. 30-35mm sounds much better.

Your mileage may vary.. I say use your 17-85, set it to 30mm or 50mm and see which one "feels" better to walk around with.

There's a few things I noticed about the Sigma 30 1.4. The focus ring is too small, I don't like the "powder coat" feel of the sigma, and the focus seems to have a rep for being fairly inaccurate at times. That said, it's certainly worth what they cost ($350-400).

My vote by all means, goes to the 35mm f/1.4L. It's an expensive bugger at over $1100 new, but it's the sharpest, most colorful, contrasty, and easy to use prime I've ever used or owned. The focus ring is big and smooth, it's sharp at f/1.4 (I have proof ), it's a perfect perfect weight on most any body, and it's built like a tank.

I just haven't seen any better. Now..is the 35L worth $700 more than the Sigma? Only you can say.

Jim G wrote in post #2231793
I have the 50mm and I find that it's a little too long for my own personal tastes for a walkaround - I find myself backing up frequently for shots. 30-35mm sounds much better.

Your mileage may vary.. I say use your 17-85, set it to 30mm or 50mm and see which one "feels" better to walk around with.

Totally agree.. But ten again, I found that the 17-85 was a perfectly good walk around lens in it's own right.

Now that I have the 50, I find that it's really challenges my discipline to get the best out of it. It really does punish the lazy shooter and rewards good technique.

Im in the market for buying these primes, after doing a lot of research...
35mm L
50mm 1.4
85mm 1.8
100mm Macro
and 135m L

You can "Walk Around" with whatever lens you want. My walk around lens can be a 10-22, or a 70-200. It just depends on what YOU want as a photographer. Id say the 50mm 1.4 would be a excellent, cost effective lens.

OOOO Ya, and going back to the topic....

Versatile and Prime is like an oxymoron. If you want versatiles get a zoom. Only thing versatile in regards to a prime is the maximum apature.

StealthLude wrote in post #2231850
OOOO Ya, and going back to the topic....

Versatile and Prime is like an oxymoron. If you want versatiles get a zoom. Only thing versatile in regards to a prime is the maximum apature.

The only thing about zooms is that I hear they are not as sharp as primes. I am currently saving for the 24-70.

cali wrote in post #2231863
The only thing about zooms is that I hear they are not as sharp as primes. I am currently saving for the 24-70.

L standard zooms are pretty darn close to being prime-sharp these days. Not much you can decide between them.

From a pragmatic perspective the IQ difference between a good prime lens & a good zoom is not of concern for the typical amateur photographer. For a walk around lens I would always choose a zoom because as noted above there is no versatility with a prime lens. I'll be in NYC this Friday and I expect that the 10-22 will be the lens of choice 90% of the time. If I had to pick a prime it would be the 30mm. Keep saving for that 24-70...it will better than any prime lens for a walk around lens on your 20D.

Years ago, 35mm film cameras were usually purchased new with a 50mm prime lens as part of the package. The 50mm lens was considered the "normal" focal length for the 35mm format, even though the technical definition of a "normal" focal length for a format is the diagonal distance across the film plane (43.27mm for a 24x36mm film frame). Many people used their camera for years with just the 50mm lens on it and never really felt a need for anything more.

With today's APS-C format digital SLR's, the equivalent "normal" lens - providing the same field of view as a 50mm lens on a 35mm film camera - is 31mm. It would probably be the best general purpose "walk-around" prime lens focal length you could choose.

Now the choice you would have to make would be which nominally 31mm lens you would choose. A "faster" lens (smaller minimum f-stop number) would allow you more flexibility to use the camera/lens in lower light levels and would provide a brighter viewfinder (making manual focussing easier).

StealthLude wrote in post #2231850
OOOO Ya, and going back to the topic....

Versatile and Prime is like an oxymoron. If you want versatiles get a zoom. Only thing versatile in regards to a prime is the maximum apature.

Agree with that.
The only thing versatlile about a prime is abilty to shoot in low light , but some primes are slower than zooms so it's not always the case.

The most versatile lens canon makes would have to be 28-300 or similar.