What lens to get next?

Just bought a 24-70mm f/2.8L and won't be needing my 28mm 1.8, was thinking of selling it and buy a 85 1.8 or a 50 1.4 (but already have the nifty fifty).

Or should I just sell it and save up for the 70-200 2.8 IS II

Eventually I'll be getting the 70-200mm 2.8 IS II, but not sure what to do now since I can't afford it at all. What would you guys do?

What about wide angle? Eventually you will need it haha! I just got a sigma 10-20mm, love it! I guess I can stop buying lens for a little while. I got the range that i usually shoot covered! Prime or second body will be next!

If u can't afford for the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II, why not consider the 70-200mm f/4 IS!

the 70-200 I'll mainly be using it in doors for dance competitions or culture shows,. Though I might consider it, since if I recall correctly, last time I used a 2.8 mostly at f/4.

As for wide angles, I think the 24-70 should be enough for now and much rather save up for a long range lens.

thestone11 wrote in post #12661432
What about wide angle? Eventually you will need it haha! I just got a sigma 10-20mm, love it! I guess I can stop buying lens for a little while. I got the range that i usually shoot covered! Prime or second body will be next!

If u can't afford for the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II, why not consider the 70-200mm f/4 IS!

read my mind but since he didnt mention the uwa (not sure why) i was wondering how much he uses the nifty fifty and if he's happy with it and how often he wishes it was longer

if you use the 50 1.8 alot and are happy with it why upgrade, if you use it alot but arent happy with the cheapness and dont need a longer fl i'd go for the sigma 1.4. if you are happy with the nifty fifty but sometimes wish it was longer i'd keep it and grab the canon 85 1.8.

as for the 70-200 check out the samples from the sigma 70-200 2.8 optically stabilized version. very promising and $1400 with a crazy long warranty and great reviews.

For the nifty fifty, sometimes I do wish it was longer. I haven't been using the the nifty fifty as much. As for why not a wide angle, before my 24-70L, I was mainly using the 28mm and never had the need of getting a wider lens, instead when using the 50mm I had to borrow my friend's 24-70 or 70-200. For the 24-70, I mostly used it between the 50-70 range.

I was considering going for the 24-70, but needed that 2.8 for indoors. I'll definitely look into the sigma 70-200, that sounds more affordable, but man, the 70-200 2.8 just feels so nice hahaha.

Is the IS really needed for the 70-200 F/4? I haven't been considering it mainly because I feel that my hands might be a bit shaky for it.

evoch3n wrote in post #12661521
For the nifty fifty, sometimes I do wish it was longer. I haven't been using the the nifty fifty as much. As for why not a wide angle, before my 24-70L, I was mainly using the 28mm and never had the need of getting a wider lens, instead when using the 50mm I had to borrow my friend's 24-70 or 70-200. For the 24-70, I mostly used it between the 50-70 range.

I was considering going for the 24-70, but needed that 2.8 for indoors. I'll definitely look into the sigma 70-200, that sounds more affordable, but man, the 70-200 2.8 just feels so nice hahaha.

Is the IS really needed for the 70-200 F/4? I haven't been considering it mainly because I feel that my hands might be a bit shaky for it.

Yes, the IS is needed on the f/4, especially canon redesigned the optics on the IS version as well, it is sharper than the non IS! Lots of user on the forum upgrade from the non IS to IS! They all think it is worth the extra money, including myself!

Try a ultra wide angle yourself! You will explore a whole different kind of experience!

IS on the 70-200 for sure

My 2 cents. I bought the f4 IS before, and didn't think it was worth the price, so I returned it and got the non-IS. I'm much happier with the extra money in my pocket than I was with the IS.
For the price (and even cheaper where I live) of the f4 IS, you can get the sigma 70-200 2.8 OS, which has better build (no weathersealing though), 2.8, tripod collar, and a longer warranty. If I did feel able to spend that much money on this hobby, I'd get the sigma without hesitation.

As for whether or not you need IS, that really is dependent on you. If you shoot still objects in low light, then you'll probably need the IS, however, IS won't help you in any way, shape, or form with moving subjects. As for the difference in sharpness, don't let that be a factor in your decision, because having owned both the IS and non-IS, I can tell you right away there is not much of a difference (at least nowhere near double the price worth), especially if you don't pixel peep at 300%. The main difference really is just the IS.
I'll freely admit that I sometimes wish I had IS, but then again, lack of it hasn't made me miss a shot so far, and I'd rather use a tripod than spend the extra money, since a good tripod is cheaper than the price difference between the 2 lenses anyway.

I wouldn't really consider any of the Canon 70-200 2.8's because of the following:
The non-IS costs more (where I live) than the Sigma OS, and they're about the same in terms of IQ, the Sigma might edge it out slightly, and the Sigma obviously has OS. The Canon IS Mk I costs quite a bit more than the sigma, and IQ is not as good. The Canon IS Mk II is simply out of budget, though it is better than the sigma in every way except warranty.

i would just save up for the 70-200 mk2 if you need the 2.8. if not then f4 IS.

Thanks for all the input everyone. So far it seems like it's either the Sigma 70-200 OS or the Canon 2.8 IS II. I'm probably gonna drop by a local store and try out the Sigma and see how I like it and then go from there. But yeah, I definitely need the 2.8. Sometimes I feel 2.8 is not enough :\

Sell the 24mm, buy a used 85mm/1.8, and enjoy the excellent DOF results (that you wont get w/ a 2.8 zoom). The money will roughly wash out and you can stay on your 70-200 quest...

When in doubt:
Slide
Punt
IS

Sell 28 and save for 70-200 II.

I wouldn't buy a 70-200 without IS. Sometimes you need it, sometimes you don't. If you don't need IS, you can always turn it off. If you need it (and eventually you will), it sure helps alot if you have it.

The 70-200 f2.8 IS Mk1 is a great lens as well if you would like to save a few $. BTW, I've got one For Sale.