I just had a shoot yesterday in a small space and I feel like I need a 35mm lens. Could you please help me sort out my thoughts. I have the lens listed in my sig line. Typically when I am doing indoor sports team photos (for schools) I am either using my 50mm 1.8 (not at low aperture) or my 85mm 1.8 (not at low aperture) and this has worked well when in a gym or other large space. I rarely work in tight spaces, and when I do I end up using my 24-70mm 2.8 (again not a low aperture). The problem is these images seem "softer" or not as high of a quality as images taken with my primes. Basically I am not happy with the images taken with the 24-70 when used "studio/portrait" style with lighting. This makes me feel like I need a 35mm prime. Is the quality of a prime likely going to be better then my 24-70? I known how wider lenses effect compression, I am a little concerned about that, but I know the 35mm is a very popular focal length. If I do make the jump to a 35mm, as I use it so little I would like to keep the price to under $1000. While I have no current plans for needing a f1.4 lens should I just "buy once cry once" and do it? Really I am looking at the following lens and struggling to chose: Nikon f1.8 is $500. This is the cheapest. Tamron f1.8 is $600. I already have many of their lenses and a TAP. Sigma f1.4 ART is $700. It comes with dock and I have heard amazing things about this lens. Tamron f1.4 is $900. Same as above. Nikon f1.4 refurbished is $1100. It is a little over my budget, but is a Nikon. Nikon f1.4 is $1600. It is out of my budget based on the amount of time used. I think my real debated is between the two Tamron and the Sigma.