I changed my mind again and now don't know

What camera are you using???

My sigma wouldn't focus right on my XT but once i had the 30d and now my Marrk IIN it works great...

other then that Dave's info is right on...

Dave, I've had the 35 2.0 and liked the FL but found the AF a little too slow, and I need something faster. I have used it at a dark gig and if the AF was more accurate it would have been great. I have also owned the 24 2.8 and again while I liked the FL it was just too slow for most low light stuff, but AWESOME for the landscape stuff.

I talked this over with my husband last night. He doesn't want me to try yet another sigma. His suggestion is to save a bit more and get the 35L and something wide like try another 24 or even spend a bit more on the 20 for landscapes. I've tried the 20 and it was ok, I think it may be a bit too wide for what I want, but then again in tight spots it may be good. I have wanted the 35L since starting with digital photography. Plus I find it funny that this will be my 10th anniv gift and the lens was designed in 1998. Silly I know. But I'm slightly superstitious.

In my film days I only had the 50 for 22 years. Only in the last couple years did I venture into other lenses. So for my mainstay lens I think the 35 would be good. It's the focal range I'm most at ease with.

Dude, it is so clear get the 35mm 1.4. If you need accurate and fast AF then the 2.0 or 2.8 ain't gonna be ideal. I am amazed at the 24mm 2.8 BTW. A real sleeper lens and very fine IQ and very good keeper ratio.