Suggestion for a zoom lens

With the equipment I already have in my signature, I would love some suggestions as to what I should buy for my first zoom lens. Something that would complement my other lenses well. My budget is around $1000, but may be willing to go to $1500 if I have a good enough reason. Thanks guys

You don't say what you shoot, but I would still say pick up a 70-200 f/2.8. Non-IS fits your $1k budget, and IS Mk I fits your $1500 budget (both used).

Can't say much without knowing what you plan to shoot with it but if I were you, I would have definitely considered one of the 70-200's or the 100-400, the latter being my preference.

A 70-200 2.8

70-200 2.8 IS

What focal length are you looking to cover?

Oh, I suppose that would be important. I use the macro/ring flash to shoot dental photography and nature macro stuff. The 50mm to do Portraits and nature/sciency stuff. I do enjoy soccer photography on the side also, and the zoom lens would be wonderfully handy for that. Thanks for the replies so far!

EF-S 17-55/2.8 or EF-S 15-85.
If you want something longer: EF-S 55-250 IS, EF 70-300L, or EF 100-400L.

Or one from each list.

foxfirewisp wrote in post #12230057
With the equipment I already have in my signature, I would love some suggestions as to what I should buy for my first zoom lens. Something that would complement my other lenses well. My budget is around $1000, but may be willing to go to $1500 if I have a good enough reason. Thanks guys

With your stated budget i would suggest the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 OS HSM, the Canon 85 F1.8, and the Canon 55-250 IS.

Regards whatever your decision,

are you using "zoom" as in something with more reach? or 'zoom' as in an actual zoom lens...if you're looking for an actual zoom lens, I think the 70-200mm would be a little limiting as your only one...i'd go for one of the 17-5X f2.8 lenses instead

Okay, I did a lot of research with the lenses that were recommended to me. The 70-200mm looks gigantic! I'm assuming this lens is very heavy and probably not a very comfortable walk around lens. That being said, it does looks like an amazing lens and something I may be interested in the future.

The 17-55 f/2.8 looks promising, I was also looking at the 24-105 f/4. I thought at first that since I had a decent low light lens with the 50mm f1.4, I should get the 24-105 for outdoor usage. But if I did make plans in the future to get the 70-200, would it make more sense to get the 17-55 to complement it?

Thank you so much for your replies, this equipment is so expensive it can be a little nervewracking when you aren't sure what to buy! Thank you for helping guide my lens research!

The 70-200 f4 IS is much lighter and smaller
I bought it partly for that reason after considering the 2.8 version, and the weight is perfect.
But I think you might want something wider as your widest is the 50mm at the moment... So I'll go and suggest a sigma 17-50 OS and a canon 85 1.8

I have a 17-85 USM IS and it's a great all around zoom lens.

foxfirewisp wrote in post #12231374
But if I did make plans in the future to get the 70-200, would it make more sense to get the 17-55 to complement it?

Short answer - Yes, it would.

The 17-50/17-55 lens complement the 70-200 range very well.

Alright! I decided on the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens. I really appreciate everyones input.

I do have one question regarding this lens. Since I have a 7D body, I am aware that my 50mm lens acts like an 80mm lens because of the 1.6x crop. Since the 17-55mm lens is an "-S" lens, am I correct in saying that it should act like a 17-55mm lens on my 7D and not like a 27-88mm lens?