Lens combo.

So, I'm sitting here doing what we all do. Read threads and debate what to buy on a budget.

So, right now I have the Sigma 18-50 2.8, Canon 50 1.8 and have a Canon 40d.

I can def. see the need for a sub 100mm zoom, which for now will be taken care of by my Sigma. I owned a 70-200 f/4L in the past and it always seemed like I was sitting at 70 or 200 when using it.

So, my thoughts were:

Get the Sigma 70-200 or Canon 200 2.8L
I'd like to replace the Canon 50 1.8 so I was looking at either the Sigma 50 1.4 or Sigma 30 1.4

I shoot for fun and am looking for great IQ w/o breaking the bank.

It depends. Would you like/need the convenience of a zoom in the 70-200? You will have 50mm covered with your Sigma but that's a pretty big gap if you decided to go with the prime. What will you be shooting?

I recently sold a Canon 50 1.8 and picked up a Sigma 30 1.4 and I couldn't be happier. What is your 50 1.8 not offering you? With the upgrade, you'll be getting the 1.4 (better for lowlight situations), better build quality, and faster AF. Between the 50 and the 30, choose purely on FL. Do you find the 50 to be 'just right' or perhaps you find it a bit long? That should answer that question for you.

Like I said. Fun. Either be something when I'm hiking, walking around downtown or just on a trip. Anything from flowers, buildings, landscapes..

50 1.8 is a nice lens, slow, but nice. Want something wider/faster for street shots. My previous setup was just a Sigma 20mm and Tamron 28-75. I really have not owned anything longer the 75mm in quite a few years.

Honestly, do you need the 200 then? I mean, buildings and landscapes call for a wide angle (10-20ish) and for flowers, I'd say you could use your Sigma (up to 1:3 magnification).

You could always do another 20 1.8 (although I have no experience with one, I don't know how fast it is). My 30 is quick IMO and definitely a great option.

Then there's always just the "spend money because you can" attitude.