Upgrade Kit Lens, UWA, or Fast Prime What Would You Do?

Can't make up my mind between these lenses or do you have any better suggestions:

1. Go UWA: Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6 $479
2. Upgrade Kit: Tamron 17-50 Non VC $414 or VC $549 or Tammy 28-75 $500
3. Get longer prime: Canon 85 1.8 $376

- Looking to spend about $500 or under
- Currently have 18-55 IS, Sig 30 1.4, Canon 70-200 f4/IS

The kit lens seems ok and use for travel and landscape. I generally use the Sig 30 indoors for low light. I use the 70-200 outdoors for sports.


Where will I get the most bang for the buck?

I'd vote #1 or 3. Of course, it really depends on what you want to use them for.

The answer that you should ask yourself is what you want to shoot. Each of those lenses serves a different purpose. A better question would be "what lens should I get for portraits?" or "what lens is best for outside football?" or something to that effect.

Enjoy portraits? Get the 85mm 1st. Landscape or architecture? 10-20mm Upgraded walkaround? 17-50mm.

#3 for me

What camera are you using?

It's hard to tell you what to do because each of the proposed new items will work for such very different things:
Adding an UWA will give you ultra wide. Is this something you are really interested in?

Speeding up your standard zoom will allow you to control DOF a lot more in most of your shots and will allow you to shoot more things in ambient light or in blended flash with ambient light.

Adding the 85/1.8 would be crucial to getting into something like indoor sports, but otherwise is probably going to have the least impact. You already have the range covered with the 70-200 and speed is less critical for DOF in this range typically.

I'm using a T2i and shoot mostly family type stuff.

some questions I have-

1. Will I notice an upgrade from 18-55 is to the 17-50?
2. Will I use an UWA? I like shooting landscapes and architecture but wonder if I could also use for environmental type portrait work?
3. Seems like the 85 1.8 is an "oughta have" lens. I wonder how much I'd use. All the great reviews make me think that I should get it. Will this be one of those... "why didn't I get this sooner"? Could I use this for walkaround duties also ?

mules wrote in post #11341619
I'm using a T2i and shoot mostly family type stuff.

some questions I have-

1. Will I notice an upgrade from 18-55 is to the 17-50?
2. Will I use an UWA? I like shooting landscapes and architecture but wonder if I could also use for environmental type portrait work?
3. Seems like the 85 1.8 is an "oughta have" lens. I wonder how much I'd use. All the great reviews make me think that I should get it. Will this be one of those... "why didn't I get this sooner"? Could I use this for walkaround duties also ?

1. The 18-55mm IS is a good lens and is sharp (hard to beat). However, the 17-50mm has better build, AF, is faster, and good color rendition.

2. Depends if you like the wide angle look. I use my 11-16mm for real estate and architecture mostly - but can be a fun portrait lens. The 10-20mm would work as a portrait + environment lens - I know a few wedding photogs that actually carry the 10-22 in their bag and use it at each wedding event.

3. The 85mm is one of the best bang for the buck lenses. The AF is lightning fast, color is excellent, sharp wide open - the only downside is the CA (chromatic abberation)/purple fringing but that can be fixed in PP. This is my go to lens for outdoor portraits. It is a little long for a crop as a walkaround, but if works well as an indoor sports lens and event lens also.

mules wrote in post #11341619
1. Will I notice an upgrade from 18-55 is to the 17-50?

Yes - this should be your most common focal length range and a faster lens will do a lot for you relative to control of DOF and control of ambient light. Given your subject matter, a faster lens in this range should be a high priority.

UWA is fun to goof around with but not critical. I have a few family shots that are UWA that I really like, but a heck of a lot more shots in the longer focal length range.

This is a pretty long lens on a T2i and I'm not sure why this is a 'must have'. You have a 70-200, and while f/4 is a little slow it is plenty fast for subjects that are not 30 meters away from you.

The need for fast apertures to control DOF decreases with longer focal lengths (IMO) as you will generally be framing the subject more tightly with longer focal lengths. Tight framing and fast apertures usually delivers inadequate DOF.

Does getting a faster 17-50ish lens make my 30 1.4 redundant? Would it make sense to try to sell the 30 1.4 and 18-55 IS and get a nicer 17-50... maybe the new Sigma or Tamron VC?

or

Sell 30 1.4 and get the 11-16 Tokina?