Isn't the17-55 f/2.8 IS less money than the 50mm and 85mm f/1.2 L primes? It'd be more versatile, I think. The 85mm f/1.2 is a killer portrait lens (though you'll needa good amount of working distancewith a 1.6 crop body) and great in low light, but then you really don't have any means to take anything that isn't in the telephoto field of view with that and your 70-200, and the 85mm f/1.2 is WAY more expensive than the 17-55 f/2.8 IS, I believe.


I haven't tried the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, thoughmost people consider it pretty great, and it would sound like a more versatile investment. The only consistent downsides I know about is lack of full frame compatibility, and the build quality isn't the very, very best that Canon offers in the 'L' line. If the price is too steep, I wouldn't get into a single L prime to compliment the 70-200before getting a quality 'walk around' range zoom, unless you're going to quickly follow that lens with more lenses. The 28-135 is a pretty good affordable lens, in my opinion. You could always compliment that with a 50mm f/1.4 for low light and portraits, or the 85mm f/1.8, which is highly regarded (but I haven't tried). Still, I might want something a little wider for big skies and landscapes, but that's not listed as an immediate priority.


But, as for the easy choice, the 70-200 f/2.8 IS is just a wonderful tool. You'll enjoy it!