Fast (<=1.8), Sharp, Prime, Short MFD, Between 20-35mm = which lens?

I'm trying to decide which lens best fits the requirements laid out in the title. For some reason my favorite shots are wide-ish angle at small apertures at or near a lens' MFD. I tend to shoot pets with this technique and enjoy the results.

From what I can tell, the choices are:

Sigma 20 1.8
Sigma 24 1.8
Sigma 28 1.8
Sigma 30 1.4
Canon 24 1.4L
Canon 28 1.8
Canon 35 1.4L

Am I missing any?

I'm considering the 35L, but can't decide if it's worth the price premium. Does anyone consider the MFD on the 35L to be too long?

I currently have the Sigma 24 1.8 and Sigma 30 1.4, but I feel the 2 are too close together to be effective and am considering selling both. I like the 30 1.4, but the MFD is leaps and bounds longer than any other lens listed above.

Newish owner of a Canon 28 with nothing to find fault with at the moment. I would be tempted with a 35L if I had the money, tho'.

shocksyde wrote in post #8660592
I'm trying to decide which lens best fits the requirements laid out in the title. For some reason my favorite shots are wide-ish angle at small apertures at or near a lens' MFD. I tend to shoot pets with this technique and enjoy the results.

From what I can tell, the choices are:

Sigma 20 1.8
Sigma 24 1.8
Sigma 28 1.8
Sigma 30 1.4
Canon 24 1.4L
Canon 28 1.8
Canon 35 1.4L

Am I missing any?

I'm considering the 35L, but can't decide if it's worth the price premium. Does anyone consider the MFD on the 35L to be too long?

I currently have the Sigma 24 1.8 and Sigma 30 1.4, but I feel the 2 are too close together to be effective and am considering selling both. I like the 30 1.4, but the MFD is leaps and bounds longer than any other lens listed above.

This is the ONLY thing I don't like about my SIGMA 30. With the 35L, essentially, you'd get a lens with very similar characteristics but better MFD. People can argue this all day long but I owned both and sold the 35L to go back to the SIGMA. If you want good MFD, get a 60 Macro for the time when you really have to get close and you'll still have pockets full of money.

35L. Even if the Sigma fit on full frame, I wouldn't go back to it. 35L is awesome

I'd go with the Sigma 24mm f/1.8 or the 35L

I -personally- am thinking of getting the Sigma 24mm f/1.8 for the purpose you mentioned however if you can find one used its a mere $250 usually

KenjiS wrote in post #8660732
I'd go with the Sigma 24mm f/1.8 or the 35L

I -personally- am thinking of getting the Sigma 24mm f/1.8 for the purpose you mentioned however if you can find one used its a mere $250 usually

I did find one used and am having a hard time convincing myself to sell it .

shocksyde wrote in post #8661421
I did find one used and am having a hard time convincing myself to sell it .

Oh!

Er...wait...why are you considering getting rid of it then?

KenjiS wrote in post #8661440
Oh!

Er...wait...why are you considering getting rid of it then?

IR Rebel XT, 24 1.8 and 30 1.4 possibly to fund 35L.

Another reason I would do this besides image quality is to consolidate gear. My bag is full and heavy. <--I'm really just using that as an excuse to get another L.

Does it have to be AF? If not, the list of choices grows much longer.

MFD isnt even an issue with the 30mm 1.4, I dont see why its brought up.

Jimmer411 wrote in post #8661514
MFD isnt even an issue with the 30mm 1.4, I dont see why its brought up.

It's an issue for me b/c it's longer than all of the other lenses listed. I'm looking for the ability to get as close as possible (I don't mean macro close, I just like the distortion).

gasrocks wrote in post #8661482
Does it have to be AF? If not, the list of choices grows much longer.

I'm a little weary of manually focusing fast lenses, but now you've got me intrigued... do tell...

shocksyde wrote in post #8661539
I'm a little weary of manually focusing fast lenses, but now you've got me intrigued... do tell...

look at his gear list, it's an encyclopedia of SLR lenses.