What to save up for...

Hi, as you can see from my signature, I currently have the T2i body, Sigma 17-70, Canon 70-210, and Canon 50 1.8.
So I decided to start saving up for something photography related, and I am thinking to get a better prime, and then save up for a better body in a year to a few years.
The primes I am thinking of, are the 85 f1.8 and the 100 f2 for outside portraits. Not sure which one to pick though. They both seem to cost somewhere around 300-350 used. I will look over my pictures, and see if I use a specific FL more, but maybe I am overlooking a benefit of one of them over the other?
Then I would slowly save up for probably a full frame camera, a 6D, or a 5D2/5D3, but that will probably take a lot longer.
Any thoughts or suggestions?
If I think of something else, will add it later

P.S. The two zooms do alright for general walkaround photography, but I feel like I need a longer prime for when I'm outside with my wife and want to get some sharper portraits.
And another place where I felt it, is I tried being a 2nd shooter at my cousins wedding, when I only had the sigma and the 50mm at the time, and really felt like I could use a longer prime than the 50mm.
So yeah, sorry for the rambling, and any advise would be greatly appreciated.

I'd say the only difference between the 85mm f/1.8 and 100mm f/2 is that the 85mm f/1.8 is a more common lens, I see more people with it than the 100mm f/2.. Most people looking for portraits like 85mm f/1.8 (Especially on APS-C because it gives a FOV similar to a 135 which is used for tight headshots)

Cant go wrong with either one...

I love my 100 f2. It's slightly more expensive (and perhaps a touch too long on crop) than the 85 1.8, so you don't see too many of them, but I think it's worth the extra money. I had an 85 1.8 for a couple of days and got rid of it very quickly...the purple fringing/image deterioration at f1.8 was too much for me.

Remember that all of your lenses 'change' when/if you go to a full frame.

What you might use a 50mm for now, you'll need an 85mm or so for when you get a full frame.

If your 50mm is falling short currently, it'll be more so later.

If you invest in a range of lenses which work well with your crop, you might not like how they work with the full frame anymore.

It seems it's generally good advice to spend money on lenses rather than bodies, but if realistically you're planning to go to a full frame at some stage, I'd look at options that future proof your current purchases.

So if I was tossing up between an 85mm and a 100mm, I'd go with the 100mm for that reason, as it'll give a wider picture once put on a full frame.

Out of your current lenses, only one is f/2.8 or faster. Your center AF point is the most sensitive- and it can certainly use the faster lens for better focusing.. Your 17-70 is f/2.8 only at the wide end.. The long zoom- is not. I have the 85 f/1.8- and like LowriderS10 stated- if it does not hold the title "king of purple fringe"- well, it should.

My understanding, which could be wrong, is that the 17-70 is not the sharpest lens- it's more of like- it's a decent lens for the money- kind of lens.. I would suspect that the 70-210 is more of a daylight lens than anything. If you want better-even on a budget- there are options.

If you are looking at the primes- I'd give the 100mm prime a try before the 85 f/1.8- only because I know how the 85 f/1.8 can be.. the 85's fringing issue is something else..

I agree that the 85 1.8 can be nasty with fringing. So is the 18-135, and the 15-85 is even worse. LR4.1 can fix any color of PF/CA with one click of the mouse. Please don't let PF/CA be a deciding factor in your lens choice. It is way too easy to fix.

Okay...the 85 1.8 is also pretty soft wide open...certainly softer than my 100 f2.

85 1.8 is a very nice lens, got a good friend with it and the 85L and he said he's getting better colors from his 1.8

LowriderS10 wrote in post #15137046
I love my 100 f2. It's slightly more expensive (and perhaps a touch too long on crop) than the 85 1.8, so you don't see too many of them, but I think it's worth the extra money. I had an 85 1.8 for a couple of days and got rid of it very quickly...the purple fringing/image deterioration at f1.8 was too much for me.

Another vote here for the 100/2, everything Lowrider said is right and he is one of the ones who convinced me to get a copy ($330 lightly used out the door).

I use it for everything from low-light sports to portrait shots. The AF will be a step up from your other lenses for sure. Here's a sample taken with this lens at ISO 6400 at F2.

Thanks for all the input guys.
The AF is really quick on my 70-210, and is no slouch on the 17-70.
I am kind of leaning towards the 100 f2 at the moment, although I've read a lot of praise about how 85 1.8 is one of the first lenses (price-wise) where you start to get some of the "wow" portraits and stuff. I do hope the 100 is a LOT like it, when people say they're like sister lenses.
I might still just keep saving up for either some other better lens, or for a FF kit (with maybe the 24-105) later down the road, but would be nice to have a longer reach prime while i'm saving.

^- Heres a thing, Lenses last a long time, Bodies come and go..

I dont think you'll be disappointed with either lens TBH, they're both very good values

What do you have for lighting gear aside from your 430EXII? Stand, umbrella, SB?

60 macro.

Nothing at the moment, still learning to use the flash efficiently with bouncing and whatnot. And its not like I do whole portrait sessions, just casual stuff. You have anything specific to suggest that I could work my way up into (next logical thing after the flash)?

My thoughts are that, at least to me, improving on ones ability to use flash has some of the highest return in creating images, people in particular.

An umbrella, lightstand, 2 -radio transceivers and ultimately a light meter would go a long way in opening up a lot of creative avenues. $150 gets you everything except the light meter.