Need opinions on next lens to buy

[Iman]

Hi,
I am new to posting on this forum but have been lurking here daily for over a year. I have read all of Bryan's reviews relevant to what I am considering, but would like some input/opinions on my next lens purchase. I currently own a 7D and the following lenses: EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS; EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 L IS; and the nifty fifty. I plan to purchase the 5D III over the next year, so I don't want to buy any more EF-S lenses. I shoot everything: portraits, family events, landscapes, birds and animals.
I love the 70-300L and bought it instead of the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, after a trip to S. Africa and Namibia last year, because I wanted the additional reach, and thought it would be more useful to me than the wider aperture. I was wrong! I find that I need both so am now considering buying a lens with high IQ with some reach but good in low light, i.e for photos of my daughter's wedding in December. So I am asking for advice on what to purchase.
Options considering:
sell 70-300L buy 70-200 f2.8L IS II and buy extender or
add EF 100mm f/2.8L IS or
add EF 85mm f/1.2L II (this is probably not long enough) or
just keep what I have and add 70-200 f2.8L IS II (but this seems like too much overlap)

I would appreciate any advice offered. Thank you

[thekingb]

Welcome! What about the legendary 135 f/2? It's a full stop faster than the 100 L macro. But the 100 L macro is a nice, versatile lens. Can't go wrong either way.

[Dr Croubie]

ooh, spending other people's money! one of my favourite hobbies!

the 135L will do you good on aps-c for indoor low-light sports or really tight head-shots, if/when you go FF it's the perfect portrait lens and won't be too long.
the 100/2.8 macro L is a stop slower, but for macro capabilities it's hard to beat (especially handheld with the fancy-pants IS). the 100/2.8 macro non-L is just as sharp (give or take a smidge), but has no IS.
i've got the 100/2.0, it's a damn old lens but honestly, for the price, it's very nice. Consistently sharp, focusses well, and a stop faster than the 100 macros. If you don't do macros and don't want to try, consider this one too. (it can be had second-hand for $3-400, if you don't like it you can always sell it again for the same price).

I've also got the 70-300L on my 7D, and wouldn't consider selling it for the 70-200L + extender, it's just better as a hiking/outdoors/generic walkaround bird lens (for those of use who can't afford the $ or kg of the 300mm+ überwhites), and no messing around with changing in/out the t/c. But if you want to concentrate more on indoorsy low-light events where you need a zoomable length, then 70-200LISII wins hands-down. Mayube i'll sell my 70-300L for the 70-200LISII one day if I make the shift to indoorsy events, but for now my priorities lie outside.

so i'm recommending the 135L, unless you like macros, then the 100L is where it's at... (or the 100/2.0 if you can't afford either of them)

[Iman]

Thank you so much! I hadn't looked at the 135L, but will do so. Everyone raves about the 70-200 f/2.8! Is it crazy or a waste of money to have both the 70-300 and 70-200?

[clemmb]

Thank you so much! I hadn't looked at the 135L, but will do so. Everyone raves about the 70-200 f/2.8! Is it crazy or a waste of money to have both the 70-300 and 70-200?

When you have the "L" Disease, every purchase is crazy but never a waste of money

[Joel Eade]

If it's primarily for Weddings and similar events I would strongly suggest you at least look at selling the 17-55mm and buying the 24-70mm f/2.8L especially on a full frame camera it is a very nice all around lens and it will fit in with your current list of lenses very well too.

You could also consider selling the 70-300mm L and purchase the 70-200mm f/2.8L and the teleconverters as well.

[andnowimbroke]

Lots of folks use the 70-200 2.8 for weddings on a FF camera, but switching from a 70-300 on a crop to a 70-200 on a 5d version might be too different for ya. One good thing about the 5d3 is you can crank the ISO up a bit more than the 7d if you do decide to keep the 70-300. Maybe use the 7d and the 17-55 as your other combo. Maybe buy a flash or faster prime lens instead are my thoughts.

[Rocco]

If it's primarily for Weddings and similar events I would strongly suggest you at least look at selling the 17-55mm and buying the 24-70mm f/2.8L especially on a full frame camera it is a very nice all around lens and it will fit in with your current list of lenses very well too.

I don't understand that. He plans on going to ff, but not until next year. Replacing the already excellent 17-55 will cost him another 1k but won't help him with his original question.
After he moves to ff, absolutely. It'd be a great choice.

I had used my 100mm macro L at a few weddings and it did fine. For what it's worth, I also rented the 85 1.2 for a wedding and recently sold my macro to help fund my very own 851.2. That's my recommendation, because that's what I ended up going with. If you can afford it, buying the 85 for indoor stuff while keeping the 70-300 for a versatile zoom might not be a bad call.

[jrw]

It is so easy to get people to help spend your money on this site, sometimes wonder if we are guilty of supporting equipment addictions.

Just to back things up a bit, were you planning on keeping the 7D and the 17-55 when you upgrade? Would be a more compact setup to carry around at times. Also, if you do wildlife the pixel density on that crop sensor is not easy to match (same pixel size on FF sensor would be over 46 MP). The ISO range and noise levels won't come close to the 5Diii but the extra pixels on target do allow major cropping. Depends on your intended usage of course.

If you were planning on selling them off I'd suggest waiting to see the test results from the hopefully coming soon 24-70 II. Paired with the 70-200 this would be the start of an amazing lens collection

70-200 f2.8 ii is an amazing lens. Use it very often for sports and events. Doesn't have the reach of the 70-300 but the aperture and the IQ have made it indispensable to me. I find the 1.4x TC to work very well with it. The 2x TC III I am not as convinced of. For filling the frame with close objects I like the results. For intense cropping or distant objects I am not a fan. Other people have no issue with the results. Highly subjective and I am quite fussy about the in camera results as I would prefer to shoot pictures rather than spend time processing images. Also when shooting on contract the images delivered are JPEGs straight from the camera with no processing. Might be part of why I am so particular about these things.

Should you replace the 70-300 with it? Depends on how often you use the 200-300 mm range and whether you are happy with the tradeoffs between cost, weight, aperture, and IQ. Do keep in mind that the sensor crop factor of the 7D will be VERY noticeable when you go FF. The 100-400 may be another lens worth your consideration, though you probably already decided in favour of the 70-300.

Any of the other lenses already mentioned by others would also serve you well, if the lens is a good fit with your typical usage. The 100 mm L macro lens is one that is easy to recommend because it is so versatile with the IS system in it and macro capabilities opens up whole new areas for you to explore.

[Iman]

Thanks for the suggestions! You have given me a great deal more to think about. I will probably keep the 7D, after I buy a 5D, at least until I see if I will still use the 7D. I really like the 8fps of the 7D for sports and wildlife! It not great in low light situations.