$2,000 budget - which lens to pick?

I need your opinion please.
I have EOS 7D and EF 40mm pancake.
Debating between EF 70-200 F/2.8 IS II or (EF 135mm F/2.0 and EF-S 17-55mm F/2.8 IS)
Note:
I have two kids, use lens for indoor, outdoor and general photography.
For wide angle, I can zoom my feet using the pancake.

THANKS A LOT FOR YOUR OPINION!

I like the ef-s 17-55mm 2.8 is idea. And I think it is kinda hard zooming in on kids with your feet with the pancake I tried chasing my nieces with a 50mm and that was pretty difficult, because you aren't just chasing your kids, you're running around a circular perimeter with your kid in the middle too.

Indoor the 135 is just waaaay too long unless you're only interested in head shots.
The 70-200 is more versatile, better choice outdoors, but a bit overkill indoors. That's a big lens to walk around the house with!
17-55 seems like the best choice considering indoors and general photography.

I've got both the 17-55 and the 70-200 2.8 is ii. I find I use both of them just as much as the other, it sounds like the 17-55 range would be more useful to you though.

Maybe buy a used 17-55 for around $700 and consider getting a 70-200 f4IS instead which from all reports is still a great lens.

17-55 IS and sigma 85 1.4 and you still have a couple hundreds to grab a flash

135L would be a bit too long for indoor shots on your 7D. I'd go with 17-55 and a 85 1.8 or a 100L instead.

To use 40mm on crop as a wide angle, you'd have to be running backwards with the space to spare. I'd go with the 17-55 and a different telephoto...perhaps the new Sigma 50-150 OS to fit your budget.

85% of my shots are with the 70-200 f/2.8 II.

The following are in my kit and great items to have:

Canon 17-55 f2.8 - $750 (just a stupid sharp, reliable lens)
Canon 85mm f1.8 - $360 (good for a little reach out doors - outdoor portraits)
Canon 430EX/II - $220 (go to $350 if you want a 580 EXII)
Eneloops and Charger - $100 (will pay for themselves on flash)
Tripod - $150
Canon 55-250 IS - $150 - (I bought mine for $120 - its a decent lens for reach - to to f6.3 or 7.1 and its fine)

TOTAL: $1730

These are conservative used prices on the lenses. You will likely do a little better...

I love 70-200mm f2.8 IS II but for kids on 1.6x crop 17-55mm f2.8.

Sigma 17-50/2.8 OS
Canon 70-200/4 IS
430EXII

I have a 2 yo and a 5yo and I also use a 30/1.4, 85/1.8 and the 24-105 a lot, but given your budget and current line up, I think the above would cover the most ground.

EF 70-200 f/4 IS and EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS
Those together will run you roughly $2k.

If I was shooting crop, I'd have a 17-55 f/2.8 IS, a great lens the crop body. Zooming with your feet, sorta works, but not always. Also, having a wider lens just gives a angle of view that you can't get just by moving your feet. I think you'll really enjoy having a wider lens than that pancake.

EF 70-200 f/4 IS is just an all around awesome lens, I really think it suits your needs best.

How old are the kids?

In any case, a zoom is handy with kids. It's the only way to keep up with them, a lot of the time.

Question is, which zoom? There are lots of possibilities!

If they are toddlers you probably don't need more than about 55 or 70mm at the long end. I was just reading about the new 24-70/4 IS that's supposedly in the works and that would potentially be a great portrait lens, especially on a crop camera like 7D. Personally I use a 24-70/2.8, but it's fairly large and heavy, plus I use both crop and FF cameras. A 17-55/2.8 IS is a nice, crop only alternative. 24-105/4 also can work well, or the 28-135 IS (which is sort of the same thing for people on a budget, but still a very good, versatile, fast focusing lens). The most compact mid-range zoom is the EF-S 15-85 IS. It's an f3.5 to 5.6, so would mostly be outdoor, daylight.

If your kids are old enough to be getting involved in some sports, you might want a longer lens like a 70-200. If it's mostly outdoors, mostly daytime, the f2.8 Mark II isn't your only choice. The 70-200/4 IS is an excellent choice, too.

Need more reach? There's the Canon 100-400 IS. Or, the Sigma 120-400 OS or 150-500 OS, either of which would eat up a lot less of your budget than the Canon 100-400.

How long a tele zoom you get is sort of decided by two things... how much reach you need (trying to photograph a kid playing and outfield baseball position?) and what mid-range zoom you've got. 17-55 and 24-50 pair up very well with 70-200 tele zooms. If you instead got a mid-range (aka, a standard or walk-around) zoom in the 24-105 or 28-135, or perhaps even the 18-135 "kit" lens (though it lacks USM, so I'm not sure how fast focusing it is), those will match up quite nicely with a 100-400, 120-400, etc.

Of course, you don't have to have every single focal length covered. You can always zoom with your feet!

70-200 IS II for sure

ducphunguyen wrote in post #15187318
I need your opinion please.
I have EOS 7D and EF 40mm pancake.
Debating between EF 70-200 F/2.8 IS II or (EF 135mm F/2.0 and EF-S 17-55mm F/2.8 IS)
Note:
I have two kids, use lens for indoor, outdoor and general photography.
For wide angle, I can zoom my feet using the pancake.

THANKS A LOT FOR YOUR OPINION!

I would go full frame and get a 135L, the 40 will really be a fairly wide angle then and the 135L comes alive on full frame. Really alive. It's a decent headshot portrait lens on crop, but the possibilities on FF are endless.

Plus if you sell the 7d you'll have cash for a 24-105 too! Since you can double the ISO of the 7d for the same amount of noise and full frame gives you 1 1/3 stop thinner DOF, the 24-105 basically gives you a crop equivalent of a 15-65 f2.5 IS with weather sealing!

5d2, 24-105, 135L, 40 pancake is a pretty nice kit.