What does everyone think of the Canon 35mm f/2 on an ASP-C body?

Brian's review is fairly positive and the ISO crops look fairly good -- center is ok at f/2.2 getting really good by f/2.8, midrange (edges on ASP-C) is good by f/4. Photozone's review from a sharpness point of view was very good although they noted the bokeh isn't great and there's considerable vignetting at f/2. Kirk Tuck seems to love his:

http://visualsciencelab.blogspot.com...enses-who.html

Down sides I've seen are that people generally dislike the AF buzzing, flare is a problem when shooting at the sun, and there's some CA.

I've fallen in love with the 135mm f/2 and have concluded primes are more up my ally than zooms. The purpose of getting a "normal" focal length would be for general indoor low light work, shots of people, creative efforts, and landscapes where appropriate with that focal length.

24mm would probably be a more ideal focal length, but there does not appear to be many fast good performers. The only decent prime option at 24mm appears to be the very expensive 24mm L II or the discontinued 24mm L I which is still pretty expensive.

Others I've taken a look at online are:

Canon EF 24mm f/2.8 -- Seems to be ok, but again it is only f/2.8. I'd likely be better off with a zoom.
Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 -- Center is good, but corners are not.
Sigma 30mm f/1.4 -- By all accounts it is similar to the 28 f/1.8. I've seen Sean has had great luck with this lens, but I'm concerned about AF with a 3rd party.

Some landscape types of shots I've taken with my slower 18-135 that I could see this replacing are:


2011_08_29_2597 by dthrog00, on Flickr


2011_09_17_3024 by dthrog00, on Flickr


2011_10_14_0025 by dthrog00, on Flickr

I'm unsure how room is available for improvement to those type of shots based off the lens used. Any help is appreciated.

Dave