Welcome!


Looking at your lens choices:


I think the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 is a great lens for landscapes, and with a minimum focus distance of 9.5" you can get some interesting macro-like perspectives on nature shots by placing some interesting feature in the close foreground.


Can't speak for the Tamron 17-50, but the focal range is nice and a constant f/2.8 is great for indoor shooting. I love my EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM lens!


I also have the EF 85mm f/1.8 - this is a great lens for close-up portraits and low light shots (i.e. school plays, indoor sports).





For the 70-200 zooom, my guess is you'll generally get more use out of a 70-200 zoom than the 85 + 200 primes. I suspect if I had gone for the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS lens first (which is on my wish list), I might not have purchased the 85mm prime (but in fact, I'm holding out for a Mk II version of the 70-200 f/2.8 IS lens, hoping for a January announcement). In practice with your camera, I doubt you'd notice the IQ difference between zoom and prime at 200mm, so the main consideration would be cost and the size/weight of the zoom, versus the increased flexibility. How much of your sports is shot indoors? I ask because if you shoot outdoors mostly, you may be better off with the EF 70-200mm f/4L IS over the f/2.8L non-IS, for a similar cost. Outdoors the loss of a stop of light will not penalize youtoomuch (iffy for high-speed sports, though), and the tradeoff is increased hand holding capability for your landscapes and nature shots.


You could also consider a 500D close-up lens for the 70-200mm zoom, which would give you near-macro capability (a little over 0.5x) for much less $ than a true macro lens.


Good luck with your choices!