Would this make a good lens kit?

[pitabread]

Right now I've got the 18-55mm stock lens, plus the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L.

I'm not happy with the 18-55mm lens (esp when comparing it to pics I get with the 100-400), and I'm strongly considering buying the 17-40mm f/4L to replace it. I'm also considering buying the 50mm f/1.4 to use mainly indoors, low-light. In particular, I want something I can use in an art gallery or museum where flash photography is usually prohibited.

So that would give me:

17-40mm f/4L
50mm f/1.4
100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L

Does this look like a good set for the 17-50mm range?

And obviously that leaves a gap in the 50-100mm range. I'm not sure if that will be an issue for me, but I was wondering: if you had one lens to pick to fill that gap, which would it be?

[bolantej]

could do an 85 1.8.

[CRE@TE]

...and a 35 1.4

[fWord]

It depends on what you want to shoot. Assuming you don't work under low-light conditions or indoors, the lenses in that kit are perfectly fine. I'm making well with just the kit lens and the 100-400mm.

If you're on a budget, and need quite an extensive range for museum, gallery or church photography, AND are on a budget, then you could try looking at wider primes such as the 24mm or 28mm.

But seeing that your subjects won't be moving (at least not very much), then I'd say that an IS lens would be helpful too. Instead of the 17-40mm L, look at things such as the EF-S 17-85mm, or the more expensive 24-105mm f/4L IS.