$2,000 budget - which lens to pick?

Thank you all for your valuable advice!

I have a kid, my recomendations for $2000 (new lenses) would be:

$550 - 18-135mm STM. Reviews so far are very good, ex Photozone. For wide angle, outdoor and general photography.
$630 - 70-200/4L. Action shots of your kids outdoor. Focus extremely fast, IQ and bokeh as good as a prime lens.
$450 - 28mm f1.8. Indoor shots. Fast focus, large aperture.
$360 - 85/1.8 or 100/2. Maybe a bit long but useable for indoor, excellent for outdoor portraits.

Total $1990

Julien
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/59602255@N08/

I have both, The 70-200 is awesome BUT it is a BRICK!!! The 17-55 is on 80% of the time

FEChariot wrote in post #15187555
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.

x2

A flash will be nice to have indoors.

I'd get the 35f1.4L. If you want to take photos of people on a crop, that would work great. I use the 35f2 for this purpose. A good dual prime setup would be the 35f1.4 and the 85f1.8.
If you want a good zoom, the 17-55IS or 24-105L would work fine. I use the 24-105L on my 60D.
Take your pick depending on intended use.
The 40f2.8 is a short telephoto on a crop body, and may be a bit tight for many people photos indoors. It will work for informal portraits, but I often wind up in situations where 35 mm is just perfect on my T2i or 60D.

17-55 ef-s and 70-200L4 IS and flash with HSS.

Four kids, BTW.

If I were you, I would (assuming you'll buy used lenses):

1st option:
Sell your 40mm pancake and get:
1. 17-55mm f2.8 - USD 750ish - for walkaround lens
2. 85mm f1.8 - USD 280-300 - for portrait, indoor shots
3. 70-200mm f2.8L IS 1st version - USD 1250ish - action shots
I know it's lil bit more than your budget, but they are all very good glasses

2nd option:
Keep your 40mm and get:
1. 17-55mm f2.8 - USD 750ish - for walkaround lens
2. 85mm f1.8 - USD 280-300 - for portrait, indoor shots
3. 70-200 f4 IS - USD 850-900 - action shots/outdoor

70-200mm IS II all the way.

First, get a flash. Something like a 430EXII is extremely useful.

Zoom lenses are great for photographing children. You can give them some space and get great shots by zooming the lens. You can't foot zoom (crawl) fast enough to keep up with a child. I added "crawl" because I am a strong believer in getting low when photographing children. I highly recommend a lens that will zoom to at least 200mm for photographing children when outside.

I use a 24-105 with a flash for inside and a 24-105 or 70-200 when outside. The 70-200 is great for children playing in a park or youth sports.

A 200mm lens is plenty long for youth soccer when playing on reduced size fields. Something longer than 200mm is needed for outfield shots in youth baseball or softball.

An f/2.8 lens is wonderful to blur a distracting background. It is not fast enough to use in most homes without a flash. It is not fast enough to use in many recreational athletic fields at night. An f/2.8 lens is not fast, just the fastest of the zoom lenses currently available.

You have received a variety of good suggestions for different lenses so no particular lens recommendation from me. Your budget is sufficient to allow choosing which lenses will fit YOUR needs. Include a flash with whatever combination of lenses you select.

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!

Do you really need IS? Or are you just getting suckered in from people saying that IS is good? My opinion, Tamron 17-50mm non-IS version (or non-VC) = $500 vs. $1000 for the Canon 17-55mm. And the Canon 70-200mm f2.8 L non-IS = $1500 vs. $2200 for the Canon IS version. OR if you want to go even cheaper, either the Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 OS ($1400) or the Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 ($800). I personally don't recommend f4 or slower lenses. Just my opinion.

+1 on drzenitram's suggestion.

I had the 135L. Sold it because it is just too long (and inflexible) for crop bodies. I got the Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS instead. It is 3 times the weight of the 135L, but it is usable on a crop.

Again, thanks a lot for all your valuable suggestions.
Update:
Just ordered Canon EF 24-105mm F/4L from Ebay for $749 (USA version).
I will order EF 70-200mm F/4L IS and EF 85mm F/1.8
All together cost me around $2,000. Will sell the pancake. I already have 430II flash.

Why not go with the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 OS and the 17-55 f2.8 for the same money?

17-55 and 85 1.8