I can add 1 L lens to my gear...for now

Brief history, I've owned a DSLR since January. Had a cheap used Rebel XT and sold it for a T1i. I now have the 18-55IS and the 55-250IS. Love both the lenses but I think I'm going to sell the 55-250 and 18-55 and replace it with an L.

I mainly shoot automotive events, cars/autos in stills, and scenery. I've just recently started doing HDR Architecture, sports, portraits.

I really enjoy shooting in low light, especially for cars since it reduces reflections. Not to mention most of the highschool football games I do is in low light. And from searching on here I know i pretty much need a f/2.8 for that.

OPTION 1: Sell both lenses and buy a 24-105mm L and save for a longer prime (for sporting events) later. Won't satisfy my low light needs right away and the season starts soon.

OPTION 2: Sell the 55-250 and get a Canon 70-200mm 2.8. I've also looked at the Sigma 70-200 2.8 since it fits my budget nicely and allows for the 85mm 1.8 and 50 1.8 to be purchased rather quickly. I'd keep the 18-55 on the wide end and replace it later.

OPTION 3: Buy a 135L f/2.0 to have fun with, will be a bit tough at sporting events but I guess I could always crop in on action. I'd sell my 55-250 to help fund this and probably still pick up some more primes later on, if not a 200mm prime.

OPTION 4: Buy a 200mm L Prime.

Option 2!!!!
EDIT: just saw you added option 4, which I think qould be a great option if you're open to it, esp. if you mainly use your 55-250 on the long end. The 55-250 will be just fine for non-lowlight stuff. Oh, and throw in a really fast prime if you can. A nifty wont cost you much at all and the 85mm f/1.8 is a good option too.

It would be the non IS version on option 2 by the way, and it would have to be used. My budget right now is at about 900 for an L lens.

Instead of a 24-105 (used around $800) consider a Tamron 17-50 (non-VC) and a 70-200 f/4 non-IS. Otherwise, the 18-55 and a 70-200 2.8

ZCphoto wrote in post #10503553
Instead of a 24-105 (used around $800) consider a Tamron 17-50 (non-VC) and a 70-200 f/4 non-IS

a 70-200mm f/4 for nighttime football?

hsmoscout wrote in post #10503559
a 70-200mm f/4 for nighttime football?

yeah, from all the reading i've been doing thats not a good idea.

so I'm guessing there's no opinion on the Sigma 70-200 2.8? I searched but didn't get too much from the site.

DPreview makes me want to buy it. the-digital-picture makes me kind of worried about back/front focus issues. And BHphoto reviews are AWESOME but the ones that are negative are REALLY negative about the focusing issues.

hsmoscout wrote in post #10503559
a 70-200mm f/4 for nighttime football?

It really wouldn't matter. If it is nighttime football, you'd want faster than f/2.8 anyways, unless it is really really really well lit.

How about keeping the 55-250, selling the 18-55, then buying the Tamron 17-50 2.8 and Canon 85mm 1.8?

That'd give you two great low light lenses at an affordable price.

hsmoscout wrote in post #10503522
Option 2!!!!
EDIT: just saw you added option 4, which I think qould be a great option if you're open to it, esp. if you mainly use your 55-250 on the long end. The 55-250 will be just fine for non-lowlight stuff. Oh, and throw in a really fast prime if you can. A nifty wont cost you much at all and the 85mm f/1.8 is a good option too.

I freaking LOVE the 85mm 1.8. I cannot wait to get it. But I don't think its focal length is near enough for football. Even 150-200mm range isn't enough but I can always do a little cropping. I can't afford the 100-400mm.

I'm open to the 200mm prim but worried it'd restrict me too much. I'm more open to the 135mm because I could always crop in. If the action comes at me with the 200 prime i'm in trouble.

Get a 70-200 2.8. That lens will rock your sox off

Kiwikat wrote in post #10503577
It really wouldn't matter. If it is nighttime football, you'd want faster than f/2.8 anyways, unless it is really really really well lit.

How about keeping the 55-250, selling the 18-55, then buying the Tamron 17-50 2.8 and Canon 85mm 1.8?

That'd give you two great low light lenses at an affordable price.

Like i said above, i love hte 85mm 1.8. I'd pick it up at the drop of a cap but the focal lengh isn't enough for football. I've already tried out the 55-250mm and even at higher ISOs the lens at 250mm and f/5.6 isn't fast enough for moving subjects on the field.

Field lighting is relatively good really. I think f2.8 would be fair.

SiaoP wrote in post #10503585
Get a 70-200 2.8. That lens will rock your sox off

But which brand????.

Canon?

Taylor02GT wrote in post #10503595
But which brand????.

Canon?

If you're gonna spend the money, go with the big white!

Kiwikat wrote in post #10503613
If you're gonna spend the money, go with the big white!

I know, i know.... haha.

Its just get the 2.8 Sigma and I can pick up the 85mm 1.8 realistically soon. Buy the Canon 2.8 70-200 and i'll be stuck with just it for a loooong time.

Taylor02GT wrote in post #10503622
Buy the Canon 2.8 70-200 and i'll be stuck with just it for a loooong time.

Oh how horrible!

Kiwikat wrote in post #10503613
If you're gonna spend the money, go with the big white!

This, I feel weird saying this but i pull mine out every now and then and just hold it in my hands and admire it. Am i weird.