Better to fill in gaps in lenses or upgrade existing lens for $1,000?

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.

or

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!

17-55 2.8 IS all the way. I consider it one of the better lenses that Canon makes and will definitely be used well with the kids.

Get the sigma 17-50 and save 500 and u get better build and better everything

I forgot to mention I tried the Sig 17-50 and didn't like it. tried 3 copies and had some focusing issues so returned and bought 28-75. I was disappointed because I love the 30 1.4.

Canon 17-55 f/2.8, definitely. It rarely leaves my 7D these days. Pick up a used copy on this forum. Most are going for around $800 to $900.

I can't speak personally about the tamron or sigma alternatives, but most everyone seems to like them.

Recommendation: Sell the Tamron 28-75 and get a Canon 24-105mm lens.

Your 70-200 is a great portrait lens. The 24-105 is pretty good, too. My best protrait photo was with my 24-105mm lens.

I assume you realize (or soon will) the sky is the limit for sports photography gear. We seem to always need something longer and faster. Local sports venues usually have poor lighting. My Sigma 85mm f/1.4 is barely usable in local gyms for youth basketball. Nothing works at some local ballparks at night, even for t-ball. I am not sure getting a 1.4X extender for a 70-200mm f/4.0 lens would really be worth losing one stop.

Some personal experience:
- I considered the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens before getting the 24-105mm f/4.0 IS lens. The focal length of the 24-105 has been great for my general purpose lens. One time a year I wish it was about 2mm wider. Being able to zoom to 105mm has been much more useful than being wider could have ever been.
- The other thing to consider is f/2.8 vs f/4.0 - Inside: I must use a flash in my home whether using f/4.0 or f/2.8 on my 70-200mm lens. Outside: I have found f/2.8 is usually too slow whenever f/4.0 is too slow.
- The 24-105mm lens plus bounced flash has been great in our homes when photographing children, newborn and older. Many shots are at 105mm for closeups.

A question only you know: Do you wish for a lens wider or longer when using your Tamron 28-75mm lens?

There are times when switching lenses is really the thing to do. That is one of the main reasons for getting a DSLR anyway.

17-55 stayed on my 50d more than anything. Lot of dust inside, bur i used it even on low rain and it was ok. Every time when i thought on an upgrade, i could not find something in that range to replace it.

A macro lens it's not only useful for macros but portraits too. The old 100mm 2.8 (nonL) was terrific.

If you are really into portraits - look on potn for thread dedicated to the 85L. Wow!

jubilatu wrote in post #14313131
17-55 stayed on my 50d more than anything. Lot of dust inside, bur i used it even on low rain and it was ok. Every time when i thought on an upgrade, i could not find something in that range to replace it.

A macro lens it's not only useful for macros but portraits too. The old 100mm 2.8 (nonL) was terrific.

If you are really into portraits - look on potn for thread dedicated to the 85L. Wow!

I don't think he is trying to double his budget to replace an already decent lens (85/1.8). The 135L he mention is a better option, although it might be a little long on a crop body.

The 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens is a tempting prospect. I always shoot with two cameras, 7D and 40D with a 17-55mm and a 70-200mm f/4L IS lens.

Get the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, sell your 28-75mm and your Tamron 28-75mm and put that money towards a second body: a 40D would be O.K. as would a 50D. I cannot speak for the other mid range zooms with a constant f/2.8 aperture but, the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens is one of my all time favorites. It is versatile and sharp as a tack. The constant f/2.8 aperture, great IS and capability for focus well at low light levels makes it a viable low light glass.

Shooting with a pair of bodies is the way to go. You get a lot more good images because you never have the wrong lens on your camera. Simply shoot with camera #2. You would also get a lot more use out of your 30mm and your 85mm primes if you had a pair of cameras.

If I used only one camera, I would have missed this shot because I was shooting wih my 17-55mm right before I grabbed my 70-200mm to osolate these two gals..

IMAGE LINK: http://rpcrowe.smugmug​.com …69470225&k=ehxv​k&lb=1&s=A

Mules, if I were you, I'd simply replace the 18-55 with the 17-55/2.8 IS. I'd also sell off the Tamron 28-75, unless you want it as a backup lens or something.

You don't have any gaps in your lens kit. The gap between 55mm and 70mm is pretty much meaningless.

You have a couple fast primes for low light situations. Keep those.

If you'd like to experiment with macro, just get a set of Kenko extension tubesand use them with your 70-200. If you find yourself liking macro and want to take it further, then get a true macro lens. I'd recommend either of the Canon 100mm lenses, Tamron 90/2.8, Tokina 100mm or Sigma 105mm as good versatile lenses. If you want a more compact macro lens, the Canon 60/2.8 might be fine. The Tamron 60/2.0 is interesting too, since it offers a full stop larger aperture and might be handy for portaits, too. However, 60mm lenses will put you closer to subjects and, depending upon what you are shooting, that can be a problem.

Note: If you do go with a macro lens, there are some advantages of the Canon USM lenses on 7D, specifically. The 7D is the first Canon to have a special macro mode... when used in AI Servo it updates 4X as often as usual, to help insure accurate focus. This is not documented in the user manual and there's little info about it out there anywhere else. But it might act as a form of image stabilization, with high macro shots. I usually use manual focus techniques when I'm shooting macro, so it really hasn't been a help to me with my 7Ds... but others might find it useful. This only works with the Canon USM macro lenses: the EF-S 60/2.8, the two current 100mm lenses and the 180/3.5L. The camera "recognizes" those lenses and, if it's set to AI Servo mode, will automatically go into the special macro mode whenever the lens is focused to a certain level of magnification (I do not have the specifics, it probably varies a bit with focal length.).

I agree with the others: replace the 28-75 with a 17-55/2.8. I lived with a 40D, 10-22, 17-55, and 70-200/4L IS for years.

As much as I like the 24-105, it does not go wide enough for me: I'd be switching it too frequently with a 17-55 or 18-55.

A 100L macro is awesome because of its hybrid IS, but, it could be too long for your 7D. If you are sticking with APS-C, the EF-s 60mm macro is very interesting.

Beautiful capture! Love the color. Well done.

I seem to be smitten with the 135L and have read the many posts about whether this is good on a crop. I realize it is long!

Will the 17-55 or 24-105 for that matter approach my 70-200 f/4 IS in color rendition and general quality? I think I'm spoiled by that lens.

When I look through the picture samples on the forum I tend to gravitate to the 135L and the Zeiss lenses and really like the separation they seem to give. Does the 17-55 have that magic quality as well?

mules wrote in post #14313626
Will the 17-55 or 24-105 for that matter approach my 70-200 f/4 IS in color rendition and general quality? I think I'm spoiled by that lens.

i started a thread here:
https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1171503

maybe it helps...

TaDa wrote in post #14312323
17-55 2.8 IS all the way. I consider it one of the better lenses that Canon makes and will definitely be used well with the kids.

Absolutly this!

You have a nice kit, IMO gaps are not a big deal (especialy yours). . the 17-55 WILL live on you body as in this zoom focal range, ther is simpley nothing better on a crop.