Lens Suggestion

I am looking for a lens to cover the mid range for my 30D. My current lenses are the EF 50mm F1.4, Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 and the EF 70-200L F4.

I am looking over the next couple of months to add the EF 10-22mm F3.5, the EF 100MM F2.8 Macro and eventually a EF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM.

I would like however something to span the range between the Tamron 17-50 and the 70-200. Any suggestions. I am pleased with my Tamron at this point so I don't forsee giving it up. However I could change my mind depending on the suggestions. My current spanning method is the tried and true "Feet" method. There are times however that changing postions is not practical. Would like to stay in the no more than $800 to solve this problem. (Less with good glass would be better).

you can get a lens that covers between 50-70, which is kind of rare, or just take a few steps forward, or crop, or a 85 prime, 60mm macro, 70mm macro from sigma, or a Sigma 17-70.

I choose to take a few steps or crop digitally.

gryphonslair99,
With 50mm F1.4, 17-50mm, 70-200L 10-22mm, 100MM & 400mm
I think you need to go out and take photos!
Instead of wondering about 50-70?

Use your feet!The gap is realy small.

I agree with previous posts--just use the foot zoom. However if you absolutely must fill the 20 mm gap you should ask yourself if you'd be willing to do a lens change everytime 50 is alittle wide or 70 is a little long. Even though you stated you don't forsee giving up the 17-50, you might be better served by trading it for a lens that is longer at the long end. The Sigma 17-70 is a possibility, but you'd lose constant f/2.8; or the well-regarded Tamron 28-75, but you'd lose at the wide end. There may be other options, but these come to mind if you can live with either of the compromises.

Have you really ever come across a situation where 50mm is too short and 70mm is too long? I would say this "gap" only really exists on paper and not to worry about filling it with another lens. If it really is critical then just shoot at 50mm and crop the image slightly. Save your money and keep saving for one of the others you have listed - the 100 2.8 and 10-22 are both very nice lenses. Plus if you really mean the 400mm 2.8 then you better start saving every penny you've got!!!

The gap is irrelevan. You have a very well judged system from a price/performance point of view. Fewer lenses can often help creativity IMO.

agreed, that is an absolutely pointless gap. not going to need it.

Thanks for the imput. I have been doing the movement thing. I didn't know if there was an advantage to a lens to cover that range and if so what the advantage compared to cost would be. Feet's keep on moving.

well just to post some thing the Canon 10-22 is actually an EF-S which is still ok in you case