Ok, so I'm nowhere near a professional. Photography is so an awesome hobby of mine but it is breaking my bank as well. Boo hoo hoo, right? Like 99% of us don't go through this. Well I've been pondering this decision for a month now. I about to get dumped on me, a small sum of money (Yay to tax returns) and I want to make a sane decision on my next lens purchase. I've already spent sleepless nights wondering which will be my next lens and I've got my heart set on the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L USM. This lens can be had for around $1200. I thought about the 24-105 but I'd find the 2.8L more useful indoors and for its bokeh. My question is. Since I am still a newbie, should I really invest the high end Canon lens or buy 2-3 high end Sigma lenses for the same price? Am I really going to notice the difference; color, sharpness, and bokeh wise? I've been shooting for about 8 months now, not 8 years. It is so easy for me to say, "Hey dumbie, of course go Canon. You can't get any better so why buy less? If you do, then you'll always be wondering if only you'd bought the Canon L your photos might be better quality". Then the devil on my other shoulder says, "Dude. You can get yourself the Sigma 24-70 2.8, the Sigma 70-200 2.8, and the killer Sigma 10-20 for the same price as the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS USM." I'm going nuts here. I can feel the money getting dumped into my account as we speak and it's already burning a hole in my wallet. But again, I'm trying to make a worthy decision here. So to you pros out there. When you were a newb like me, did you go for the gold and went straight for high end Canon/Nikon lenses? If so or if not, why? And would you make a different choice if you had the chance back when you were a newb? Thanks so much for any advice. I know this was a bit to read and I thank you for getting this far. **Last note. I plan on upgrading to full frame by the end of the year. A 5D or a 5D MII if I can afford it. Not sure if this makes a difference in lens choices.