How is this setup/would you change anything?

Ok the last time I shot anything was with a Rebel 350 many moons ago.

I am looking at getting back into it and have been following some suggestions.
I will be shooting kids sports, day and night, landscape , and maybe some portraits.

Here is my current shopping list, and yes budget is a slight concern.

Body: Canon 7d
Lens: Canon 70-200 2.8L (possibly IS for sports)
Canon: EF 85mm f1.8 USM (portrait?)
Landscape:? suggestions

Thats a good start. For landscape you could go with a 17-55 2.8 IS which is a good wide walkaround lens, or if you want ultrawide the 10-22.

That looks like a good start. One question - what sports will you be shooting? If it includes large field sports (football, soccer, etc) the 70-200 might not give you the reach you want, but it is a good start

Excellent starting point.

hotled wrote in post #16291032
Ok the last time I shot anything was with a Rebel 350 many moons ago.

I am looking at getting back into it and have been following some suggestions.
I will be shooting kids sports, day and night, landscape , and maybe some portraits.

Here is my current shopping list, and yes budget is a slight concern.

Body: Canon 7d
Lens: Canon 70-200 2.8L (possibly IS for sports)
Canon: EF 85mm f1.8 USM (portrait?)
Landscape:? suggestions

I don't see the sense of an 85 1.8 with a 70-200 2.8 on call. Get an 85 1.2 or a 50 1.4. You've already got the 85 1.8 covered.

YashicaFX2 wrote in post #16291212
I don't see the sense of an 85 1.8 with a 70-200 2.8 on call. Get an 85 1.2 or a 50 1.4. You've already got the 85 1.8 covered.

Have you ever tried to shoot an indoor sporting event with any of your alternative lenses? The 50 is too short, the 85 1.2 is a great portrait lens but not the fastest focus. The 2.8 zoom is too slow for most no professional gyms? The 85 1.8 is the go to lens for Basketball or volleyball.

Keltab wrote in post #16291046
That looks like a good start. One question - what sports will you be shooting? If it includes large field sports (football, soccer, etc) the 70-200 might not give you the reach you want, but it is a good start

Reach will probably be an issue so I will have to position myself the best I can.
Not sure if a magnifier is able to be used successfully say a 2x or would it soften to much?

Old shots with 350d and kit lenses not good I know but am learning and this was also many years ago.

gonzogolf wrote in post #16291343
Have you ever tried to shoot an indoor sporting event with any of your alternative lenses? The 50 is too short, the 85 1.2 is a great portrait lens but not the fastest focus. The 2.8 zoom is too slow for most no professional gyms? The 85 1.8 is the go to lens for Basketball or volleyball.

You caught me with my pants down on that one. I stand corrected. I have used my 85 1.8 in just such situations. Sorry, I don't know what I was thinking.

hotled wrote in post #16291032
Lens: Canon 70-200 2.8L (possibly IS for sports)

While IS makes a lens more versatile, you do not need it for sports, as your shutter speeds are typically fast in order to freeze motion. Most shooters also turn the IS off, so that the lens can snap into focus faster.

adamo99 wrote in post #16291857
While IS makes a lens more versatile, you do not need it for sports, as your shutter speeds are typically fast in order to freeze motion. Most shooters also turn the IS off, so that the lens can snap into focus faster.

Agreed. My Sigma OS and 100-400L both focus faster with the IS shut off. Which is OK, during the day, at least.

Actually, unless you are going to be shooting professionally, I'd probably go with the new 70D right now, instead of the four year old 7D (and I use two 7Ds personally).

If you can live without f2.8, you might want to consider the 70-200/4 IS, so that you can get the IS. Yes, with sports sometimes IS is not necessary... But, having used a bunch of IS lenses for sports shooting for over ten years now, I can tell you for certain I have gotten a lot of shots thanks to IS, that I wouldn't have at all, or wouldn't have been as good without it.

I never shut off IS (on two 28-135s, 70-200/4 IS, 70-200/2.8 IS, 300/4 IS, 300/2.8 IS, 500/4 IS) and I don't believe it effects AF at all. Of course I use Back Button Focusing with AI Servo most of the time, so my subject is usually in focus and being tracked long before I trip the shutter. The only thing I ever noticed turning off IS is slightly better battery life (not enough to make much difference... I just carry extra batteries).

A few of my lenses need IS shut off manually, if they are locked down on a tripod. However, they are the type of lenses that I'd rarely put on a tripod anyway... and even when I use a tripod it's usually with a gimbal mount and loose panning axis to be able to track subjects, in which case there is no need to turn off IS on any lens.

The 70-200/4 IS is the second sharpest of Canon's 70-200s. The first is the 70-200/2.8 IS Mark II that costs a whole lot more. The third sharpest is the 70-200/2.8 IS "Mark I" or the 70-200/4 non-IS (they are about the same). And the least sharp of the five Canons is the 70-200/2.8 non-IS.

My 70-200s are my most used lenses shooting sports. Second most used is my 300/4. For motorsports I sometimes use a 1.4X on it, but can't remember the last time I did that for field sports. But I usually have sideline access for any sort of sports.

On rare occasions I've used a good 1.4X on a 70-200 and it's image quality is pretty good, but the TC does slow AF a bit. I will not use a 2X on 70-200... there's just too much loss of image quality.

For general use, you also might want something wider. With either 7D or 70D, you should be able to get it "in kit" with 18-135 IS STM, which seems to be a pretty good lens.

Even better is the 15-85 IS USM (wider for those landscape shots, plus better AF drive, unless you plan to shoot a lot of video), but it's more expensive and rarely bundled in kit with the cameras.

Or, if you want really wide for landscapes, the Canon EF-S 10-22mm USM is a top choice for use on crop cameras.

Between the 10-22 and 70-200, there would be a pretty big gap in the middle, at some important focal lengths. The best zoom to plug that hole is the EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS. However it's also the most expensive.

A three zoom set: 10-22, 17-55 and 70-200, would be a nice setup... add a 1.4X for more reach at times.

If wide enough, a two zoom set with 15-85 and 70-200 + 1/4X would be pretty nice, except there's no "fast" lens for low light... so might want to add some fast primes such as 28/1.8, Sigma 30/1.4, 35/2, 50/1.4, 85/1.8.

On a crop camera, a 50mm is a "short portrait" lens... nice for indoors when working space is tight. 85mm is a "long portrait", good outdoors or any time you have space, and a bit more of a "candid" lens, aallowing you to work a little farther from your subject.

If you want a macro, that's possible, too... and might take the place of one of the primes. I'm currently trying out the Tamron 60/2.0, which thanks to it's unusually large aperture, makes for a nice portrait lens, too. It doesn't have really fast AF, though, so isn't much of a sports lens (it's rather short for sports, anyway).

Really there are lots of ways to put together a lens kit... and I'd consider that first, camera later. Lenses make more difference to your images, than the camera they are used upon.

Taking all the advice in, thank you all.
I have been eying several used 7D for around 700-750.00 (some have between 7179 actuation's on the shutter and 20,000.
The 70D seems to be right around 1250.00 as an average- my question, is it 500.00 better over a used 7d?

adamo99 wrote in post #16291857
While IS makes a lens more versatile, you do not need it for sports, as your shutter speeds are typically fast in order to freeze motion. Most shooters also turn the IS off, so that the lens can snap into focus faster.

I agree, I virtually only shoot sports, mainly professional / semi pro rugby; I have OS on my Sigma lenses and I can't remember when I last turned it on; I am always over 1000 shutter speed anyway.

Reach may be your only issue, I have my 7d with my 70-200 canon on it and my 6D with the Sigma 70-200 with 2x extender. I use the 7D the most to be honest but then at most grounds I am allowed to move up the touchline when I want.

hotled wrote in post #16293155
Taking all the advice in, thank you all.
I have been eying several used 7D for around 700-750.00 (some have between 7179 actuation's on the shutter and 20,000.
The 70D seems to be right around 1250.00 as an average- my question, is it 500.00 better over a used 7d?

Personally I don't see any real advantages of the 70D over the 7D when it comes to the cost you can get a 7D for now, I was tempted to go for the 70D but I don't feel it out performs the 7D for what I want to shoot. I am waiting for the unicorn that is the 7D II

Thanks: Probably going to stick with a used 7D coupled with a Tamron SP 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD.
Keeps it under 2k so I can add a few lenses later.