Upgrade Advice Needed

Hi everyone, i own a canon t2i and a 24-70 L Mk I right now.
i'm counting on buying a 70-200 f/2.8 (cant decided IS or not yet, any thoughts? ) and upgrading the t2i to a secondhand 1D Mark III.

My main question is:
what should the purchase order be between the 70-200 and 1D mark III?
Should i sell my 24-70 to buy a good prime? (perhaps one of canon's holy trinity? )

If i should sell my 24-70, what primes should i get? What would the purchase order be between 70-200, 1D Mark III, and primes, if i should get one(or some).

I mainly shoot sports photography, ranging from outdoor football and water polo to indoor wrestling and volleyball.

Thanks in Advance!

I would get the 70-200mm f2.8 first, it will help with the outdoor sports (Though I'd rather have a 300mm f/2.8 for football). I am partial to lenses beyond 135 having IS. The choices would be a MKI, MKII, or the Sigma OS. Then either a 85mm f/1.8 (or 100mm f2.0), and/or 135L because of their focus speed for the indoor sports. I personally prefer zooms most of the time.

After the lenses, then upgrade the camera. This is what I would do, I know there are others who might do it opposite.

I personally would not sell lenses to get another lens, unless I didn't use it or was upgrading at that FL.

I've shot all of these subjects for more than a few years--and the 70-200 f2.8 is the basic lens in every sportsshooters bag--IS is nice but does you no good if you can't get enough shutter speed to freeze the action.

My second budget choice would be a 100 f2.0 or an 85 f1.8--The 100 is slightly better at controlling CA but my wife prefers her 85 as it focuses slightly faster.

The 135 and big 300 are two "hoyt $hit" choices--but I find the 135 to be an odd focal length and the 300 hard to justify on a budget--but they are both something special.

Best of luck with your decision

24-70 doesnt do you much good for shooting sports. go for the 70-200 2.8 non-IS. if you find you need the IS, then you can always upgrade. however, if non-IS meets your needs then you have a decent amount to put towards a longer prime.

IMO, get the glass, then the body and then venture into primes

Much is said about the 70-200mm f/2.8L lens being sharper than the f/2.8L IS version and the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS ii being sharper than either of the first two I mentioned.

Additionally, much is said about the 70-200mm f/4L IS being sharper than either the f/2.8L and the f/2.8L IS lens and being right about at a par with the f/2.8L IS ii.

I don't doubt that pixel peepers and lens testers can notice a difference. However, I seriously wonder if you were shown a selection of images shot with the five 70-200mm L cousins, whether you could accurately pick which lens shot which image on the basis of image quality.

OTOH when selecting a lens of this focal length, I would seriously recommend that you pay the extra dollars to get Image Stabilization.

1. I can shoot my f/4L IS lens hand held in lower light conditions that I could hand hold a f/2.8L non-IS lens. I can hand hold the f/4L using 200mm at 1/60 second and be certain of 100% sharp imagery. At 1/30 second my IS keeper rate falls slightly but is still respectable. I could not expect 100% sharp hand held imagery with the f/2.8L non-IS lens at the same focal length using 1/120 second shutter speed and I would probably get no sharpimages at 1/60 second. 1/120 second and 1/60 second are the f/2.8 equivalents of f/4 at 1/60 and 1/30 second.

2. As a result of the ability to hand hold my f/4L IS lens at slower shutter speeds, I am not a slave to bright light or high ISO and I shoot 4-5 times as much with my f/4L IS lens than I ever was able to with my f/4L non-IS lens.

so should i sell my 24-70?
and do primes have any utility in sports?