New lenses

I currently have about 600$ to spend on lenses. I have

sigma 10-20
sigma 17-70
50mm 1.8
flashes


Im looking at the sigma 70-200 2.8. But im thinking i wanna get 2 lenses but dont know which to get. Im shooting everything right now, sports, portraits, cars... So what do you think the best bet for me is? I might wanna get into wedding too. I might sell the 17-70 for the tamron 17-50 2.8 so i have a good low loght lens too. Also thinking about picking the 85 1.8 up and maybe another lens or maybe a 580 ex

unlimited6986 wrote in post #6281999
I currently have about 600$ to spend on lenses. I have

sigma 10-20
sigma 17-70
50mm 1.8
flashes

Im looking at the sigma 70-200 2.8. But im thinking i wanna get 2 lenses but dont know which to get. Im shooting everything right now, sports, portraits, cars... So what do you think the best bet for me is? I might wanna get into wedding too. I might sell the 17-70 for the tamron 17-50 2.8 so i have a good low loght lens too. Also thinking about picking the 85 1.8 up and maybe another lens or maybe a 580 ex

I'm not sure you have clarified your own thinking enough so far to decide. You clearly lack any kind of telephoto, so some kind of 70-XXX or longer prime makes sense if you need the range.

Your statement 'I'm thinking I wanna get 2 lenses' seems like muddy thinking to me. Is this because 2 is more than 1? Or do you have two specific shooting objectives that cannot be covered by one lens?

I think this is the crux of the problem. You are not starting from 'I'd like to shoot X but I cannot do it without lens Y'. You are starting from 'I have $600, I think I'll get something'. This is why the something isn't obvious yet.

I would think also that the 70-200 would be a good choice.

I have my mind set on the sigma 70-200 2.8, but was just seeing if you guys would do something diff. I used to have a 70-200 F4L but didnt use it much. But i think ill stick to my gut and get the 70-200.

I think a 70-200 would be a good choice as well...but I'd lean toward the Tamron. It's sharper overall than the Sigma and Tamron's quality control is MUCH better (the guy from The Digital Picture returned his copies of both of the most recent Sigma 70-200s twice for front-focusing. Or was it back-focusing?) The one drawback is that it apparently sucks at 135mm.

I also have a friend who did some lens tests in one of his college courses, and they found that the Sigma was almost a full stop darker than the Canon equivalent at 2.8...weird, huh?

But don't listen to me too much, i've never actually used either of them.

unlimited6986 wrote in post #6282188
I have my mind set on the sigma 70-200 2.8, but was just seeing if you guys would do something diff. I used to have a 70-200 F4L but didnt use it much. But i think ill stick to my gut and get the 70-200.

Why didn't you use the 70-200/4 much? The Sigma 70-200/2.8 is going to be more of the same plus one stop faster. Will one stop take a lens from not used much to a priority?

I never used it because i was still new into photography, now that ive gotten better i wanted to get a 70-200. Plusim getting the sigma used for 600 or i can get the F4L for 4-500. Which would be the best choice? Get the 2.8 or get the F4 and save myself 1-150$

unlimited6986 wrote in post #6282350
Which would be the best choice? Get the 2.8 or get the F4 and save myself 1-150$

I'm kinda new to all this, but wouldn't that sorta depend upon whether your "sports, portraits, cars" are indoors or out... and if you use a flash?

Yea im searching around for the best deal on the 2.8 right now.

IMO, JeffryG's comments are right on the mark.

Set aside the money, number of lenses and "which is a bargain" for a moment.

Where do you feel the pain with your current lenses? Really think about it and then prioritize the pain. Once you have that, the rest is pretty easy.