Lens recommendations.....

I'm planning on upgrading from my Canon T3 w/ the 18-55 and 55-250 kit lenses. After shopping around, I think the Canon 7D would be a good choice for me (lots of kids in sports and outdoors photography) but I'd like some input on the lens(es).

I thought picking up either a 24-105 or 28-135 would be the best bang for my buck because I could use the original kit lenses until I'm able to upgrade those as well. Down the road I think my first upgrade will be the Canon 2.8 70-200 for sports/wildlife but that might not be for awhile due to the cost (I'm on a budget). Also, I don't plan on ever going to a very expensive FF camera either so any/all lenses will probably be used with this 7D or something similar. That being said - what would you recommend and why? Thank you!

Nebraska wrote in post #15983664
I'm planning on upgrading from my Canon T3 w/ the 18-55 and 55-250 kit lenses. After shopping around, I think the Canon 7D would be a good choice for me (lots of kids in sports and outdoors photography) but I'd like some input on the lens(es).

I thought picking up either a 24-105 or 28-135 would be the best bang for my buck because I could use the original kit lenses until I'm able to upgrade those as well. Down the road I think my first upgrade will be the Canon 2.8 70-200 for sports/wildlife but that might not be for awhile due to the cost (I'm on a budget). Also, I don't plan on ever going to a very expensive FF camera either so any/all lenses will probably be used with this 7D or something similar. That being said - what would you recommend and why? Thank you!

I never owned one of these, but people give alot of credits to the 24-105. Seems a good walkaround lens, and for outdoor f/4 should suit you. However you should be clear what 24-105 is on a crop sensor body. It may be too long for your needs

The 24-105L is one of the lenses I use the most and I very happy with the IQ.
Depending on what you shoot but the 24-105L on a 7D will be like ~38-170mm.
You can try these focal lens with your kit lens and see if it fit your need.
I use it often with my 7D for portrait shoots.

With the 18-55 and 55-250 you are pretty well covered, with fairly decent glass. Neither the 24-105 nor 28-135 is bringing much extra to the game for all that money. Spending money to cover the same range(s) you already have covered, at much the same apertures, makes no sense to me. Especially if you are on a budget.

Perhaps a fast prime (single, fixed focal length lens) would give you something to experiment with. Something like the 28 1.8 or 35 f/2 (old version) can be used indoors without a flash, sometimes. Or maybe the 50 1.8 or 85 1.8 for some thin DOF portrait-type work.

You didn't mention flash, but if you don't have one, the 430 EX II will do about anything you want, plus it will improve your photography if/when you really learn how to put it to good use.

If money is tight, don't squander it on tiny bits of improvement like the 24-105 or 28-135. Ok, 24-105 shooters, let me have it.

Nebraska wrote in post #15983664
I'm planning on upgrading from my Canon T3 w/ the 18-55 and 55-250 kit lenses. After shopping around, I think the Canon 7D would be a good choice for me (lots of kids in sports and outdoors photography) but I'd like some input on the lens(es).

I thought picking up either a 24-105 or 28-135 would be the best bang for my buck because I could use the original kit lenses until I'm able to upgrade those as well. Down the road I think my first upgrade will be the Canon 2.8 70-200 for sports/wildlife but that might not be for awhile due to the cost (I'm on a budget). Also, I don't plan on ever going to a very expensive FF camera either so any/all lenses will probably be used with this 7D or something similar. That being said - what would you recommend and why? Thank you!

There is a significant difference between 24-105 and 28-135 in terms of:

* IQ
* Build quality
* Weather sealing
* Focus speed

It's like comparing a BMW to a Ford, if you can afford the L glass, get it, you won't look back.

Nebraska wrote in post #15983664
I'm planning on upgrading from my Canon T3 w/ the 18-55 and 55-250 kit lenses. After shopping around, I think the Canon 7D would be a good choice for me (lots of kids in sports and outdoors photography) but I'd like some input on the lens(es).

I thought picking up either a 24-105 or 28-135 would be the best bang for my buck because I could use the original kit lenses until I'm able to upgrade those as well. Down the road I think my first upgrade will be the Canon 2.8 70-200 for sports/wildlife but that might not be for awhile due to the cost (I'm on a budget). Also, I don't plan on ever going to a very expensive FF camera either so any/all lenses will probably be used with this 7D or something similar. That being said - what would you recommend and why? Thank you!

Do you like using the 18mm end on your 18-55? Because if you do, don't get the 24-105 or 28-135.

Look into the 15-85 instead. Much better on crop.

"lots of kids in sports and outdoors photography"

Don't spend several hundred dollars now and start saving for that 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II

Save $20 per week and in a little over a year you will have enough money to purchase the 70-200mm lens (assuming you save what you have now.)

Craign wrote in post #15984103
"
Don't spend several hundred dollars now and start saving for that 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II

I know this isn't what you are asking, but why do you want the 7d? Less lag, faster fps, micro adjust? It's a lot more expensive than the 60d. If that is worth it to you, then it's worth it, but you could put that $600 towards glass and be a lot closer to a really amazing lens for "kids in sports" like the 70-200 f/2.8 IS mentioned above.

7d $1300 + 24-105L $1150 = $2450
60d $700 + 70-200 f/2.8 IS $2200 - selling the 55-250 on eBay $125 = $2775

That's a lot of $ but for basically 10% more, you'd have an amazing lens that would take great pics, hold its value, and would work on FF should you ever decide to go that route.

Pretty sure the 60D has less shutter lag than the 7D. Odd, but true.

EDIT: No. It is not. Just looked them both up. Shutter lag is 0.059 seconds on both models. Perhaps it is me that is odd? True!

I have to second Fred's recommendation. The 60D would allow you to get the 70-200L faster. It has the frame rate you need and the 70-200 is simply mind numbingly brilliant!! I'd start there then upgrade your shorter zoom later.

60D, EF 70-200/4 L IS, Tamron 17-50/2.8 (non-VC version.)

gasrocks wrote in post #15986248
60D, EF 70-200/4 L IS, Tamron 17-50/2.8 (non-VC version.)

I second this suggestion. the f4 IS is plenty fast and sharp.

Well, never say never.
What is driving you to go from T3 to 7D? Down the line you may feel to go full frame.

But anyways you have advantage of selecting 1.6 crop sensor camera which will suit your need for kids , sports and outdoor photography.
Canon 7d is a fantastic performer but I would suggest to get 70-200 2.8 and then think if you really need camera upgrade?
-Amit

I'll add my +1 that the 70-200 lens is going to be more of an upgrade for you than the 7D.

I got the 60D and invested more in glass instead of buying the 7D and I've never regretted it. The only thing that "might" be helpful is Micro Focus Adjustment, but I have yet to need that either.

gasrocks wrote in post #15986248
60D, EF 70-200/4 L IS, Tamron 17-50/2.8 (non-VC version.)

vertigo235 wrote in post #15986762
I got the 60D and invested more in glass instead of buying the 7D and I've never regretted it.

That's basically the same route I took since I'm mostly shooting my kids:
60d, Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS, Canon 24-105 f/4, Canon 70-200 f/4 IS, Sigma 30 f/1.4, Canon 50f/1.4, 1.4x ii extender
A lot of people would think that's way too much overlap and they may have a point, but kids are rarely stationary so I like the flexibility of the zooms. The 17-50 2.8 is my default indoor lens, 24-105 outdoor, and 70-200 sports. The primes are for when they actually let me pose them or set up a shot, or if I feel like doing something creative.