I'm spoiled! Now what?

I recently bought the 70-200 f/4 and WOW! The IQ blows away anything I've owned up to this point. Dead-on sharp, nice bokeh for f/4, love the colors.

So I'm still slowly getting my bag re-geared for doing child photography/portraitur​e. Right now my only other lens is the 50 1.8 but for some reason it has just never made me fall in love. Focus seems hit or miss alot of the times - not real dependable. And now, after the 70-200, it really doesn't shine much, for me at least.

I'm trying to research what other lenses would suit my purposes and also have the really good IQ that I am now so spoiled with. I can't say superior IQ right now because of budget restraints. I was considering the 17-55 IS or the 24-105 for zooms and the 85 1.8 and/or 50 1.4 for primes.

I would be working mainly outdoors (occasionally indoors).

I'd love to hear opinions and suggestions.

The Sigma 17-50/2.8 OS is in the same IQ league as my 70-200/4 IS and a nice discount over the 17-55. The 60/2.8 is also stupid sharp on crop.

My 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 also see a lot of action but need some stopping down for sharpness, 1/3rd to 2/3 stop, compared to the above lenses that I don't feel need stopping down.

IMO the 24-105 does not compare to the 70-200 in IQ. It is really a convenient range on FF with decent enough sharpness but poor bokeh.

I don't have any shorter lenses with the IQ of the 70-200, but I'm guessing your going to have to go prime or one of the 17-50/55's (or the 24-70 II). 85 1.8 should be good too, I opten for the sigma because I could afford the extra and IMO the IQ/bokeh is much nicer. OTOH the AF is not close to the 85 1.8.

if you want fast AF the 85/1.8 is probably the fast focusing lens canon makes and its quite sharp the 50/1.4 is sharp too.

i'd pick the tamron 28-75/2.8 over the 24-105 its very sharp, great portrait lens on a crop if you can live with 28mm being the widest length.

Nice companion to your 70-200 is the Tamron (non-VC) 17-50/2.8. And your 70-200 will take a Tamron SP 1.4x TC well.

17-55mm f2.8 IS over 24-105mm for sure on a crop. I never liked 24-105mm even on FF.

Primes wise newer 30mm f1.4 or canon/sigma 50mm f1.4. Budget option 85mm f1.8 otherwise sigma 85mm f1.4.

Now that you have the longer range covered. I suggest a wide prime.

Sigma 30/30 Art, Sigma 35 depending on your budget.

I also highly recommend the Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS. I have been extremely happy with mean. Awesome walk-around lens.

Sorry I haven't gotten back til now. There are some suggestions I hadn't considered that I will now. Thank you all!

I'm still torn between going zoom or prime but it looks like both camps have some good options.

Can't beat the sharpness of a prime lens, but that's only my personal view. (and I own 3 zoomers)

17-55 is fantastic. Personally, I like FTM, and the Sigma/Tamron don't do that (unless there is a new version out there that does). I've gotten some really great shots of my kids with it and my 70-300L. Like you, I'm spoiled by the IQ of both of those lenses.

mike_311 wrote in post #16058802
if you want fast AF the 85/1.8 is probably the fast focusing lens canon makes and its quite sharp the 50/1.4 is sharp too.

i'd pick the tamron 28-75/2.8 over the 24-105 its very sharp, great portrait lens on a crop if you can live with 28mm being the widest length.

Oddly enough, I sold my tamron 28-75 because I thought it was too soft and not great.
I was impressed with the sigma 24-60 2.8 and more impressed with the 24-105
the tamron is 250-350 used while the canon is 750-850 used.. there is a reason it's 3x the cost.

for primes the 35 f1.4l and 50 f1.2l are vert very good and have great boketh
the 85 f1.8. 35f2, and 50 f1.4 are nice but not as good a build

If you plan on using flash/studio lighting and like to shoot portraits at f/8, then the zooms work great. I like my 17-55 and it complemented my 70-200/4L IS for years.

If you go primes, you could get the usual 85/1.8, but, on a crop, you'll be backing up a lot and/or going for head shots. Getting a 35mm prime would also be nice.

Hoping for a bit more insight here....

I think I've narrowed it down now to either:

a) the Tamron 24-70 VC to cover the mid to wide end of things

or

b) start with the 85 1.8 and then work my way down the focal length scale with primes as needed

all the while keeping my 70-200/4.

But I wonder...is the 85 1.8 redundant when I have the 70-200 to cover that length already or is it worth having the faster lens? I just seem to be really intrigued with this lens but don't know if I'm being silly.