I need some advice please!
Does it make more sense to add a lens that "fills a gap" in my lineup that I'll use some of the time or upgrade a lens or focal length I shoot more frequently ?
I have a 7D with a 430 EX flash and the following lenses:
Tokina 11-16, Canon 18-55IS, Sigma 30 1.4, Tamron 28-75, Canon 85 1.8, and Canon 70-200 f/4 is
I shoot mostly kids stuff (new baby just arrived), portraits and sports (soccer, basketball, baseball).
With a $1,000-$1,2000 to spend... which makes the most sense?
- Upgrade existing zoom glass to something with IS
Add 17-55 IS since the 28-75 stil requires a switch to Sigma in lower light and I have shaky hands. Also it appears 17-55 could stay on camera more and not require a switch to Tokina to go wider. Had also considered 24-105. Would sell 28-75.
Add 135 L since I use my 70-200 at 135mm a lot for portraits and would allow faster and longer reach for night soccer and football (vs existing 85 1.8). Would probably sell 85 1.8 in this case.
- Fill a gap to add macro or go longer
Add a macro like 60 mm 2.8 or 100L is to capture macros (small baby details) and get into macro photography (and also use for portraits).
Add a longer lens over 200mm which I currently don't have by using a 1.4 extender or buying something longer?
Really seems to come down to zooms vs. Primes. 17-55 is or 24-105 vs 135 L, 100L, 60 mm, or I have even looked at Zeiss glass for portaits. Just need some experience and some direction. Thanks!