24-70L vs 28 1.8 and 85 1.8

I have a dilemma about which to purchase and hope for some insight. I shoot mainly outdoors in natural lighting although recently have begun to experiment with flash techniques to achieve the same natural lighting indoors. Here is my current setup:

40D
17-40L F4
24-105L F4
100-400L F4.5-5.6
50 1.4

After getting the 50mm I've decided I need some faster lenses to fill in where the F4's fall short. Originally the plan was to get the 28 1.8 and probably 85 1.8 to fill the gaps. However, seeing the 24-70 at B&H for $984, I've begun to reconsider. I've heard great things about this lens but don't know if it is worth buying since I already own the 24-105. Would I be better off saving $250+ - with the two non-L primes?

As a side note...there is a reason I don't own any EF-S lenses and I maybe completely off base with my thinking. I've always intended to eventually upgrade to a FF body and wanted to be sure all my lenses would be compatible. I don't know whether I would keep both bodies and wanted to play it safe.

Frankly, since you have the 24-105 don't go with the 24-70. Your shooting style doesn't need the 2.8.

I would fill in the gap with a 70-200 of some sort. F4 IS seems right on the 40D.

The primes you mention are covered range wise already and it doesn't soound like the faster lens is needed. Just my 2 cents.
--
Happy Shooting
regards,
def
http://www.pbase.com/definchdds

I think you're mostly all set. You might consider a wider lens, like a 10-22.

I wouldn't buy the 24-70 if I were in your shoes, already owning a 24-105 and a crop body.

The other lens to consider is the 35mm f2 or f1.4 if you want an available light normal lens.
--
Phil Flash
SF, CA USA

It's not the camera. It's you.

Stuff I own in my profile.

I would get the Sigma 30mm f1.4 and the Canon 100mm f2.

I think you should add the primes. Zooms for flexibility & primes for speed. I went with the 24-105 vs the 24-70 partly for this reason.

I would get the 85 1.8 for sure. I have one, it's very nice and I suspect you'll find reasons to reach for it more than your 50.

Per jrscls' suggestion the Sigma 30 1.4 is worth checking out. I really wanted this one, but soured on it after two bad copies (AF issues). I ended up saving for the 35L (I have it now on my 30D & it's totally worth it, if you will use this focal length). It seems like every other option in the normal-for-crop range (say 28 to 35) has compromises. The problem is that if you get the 35L, you might start hungering for the other L primes...

--
Lyin' Pete used to do this all by touch...

I am leaning towards adding primes since my focal length is covered fairly well by the zooms and 17mm is wide enough. The 85 is high on my list especially with the rebate. Although not currently in my budget the 35L and 135L are on my wish list.

Should I bother with the 28 1.8 at this point especially if I'll get a 35L in time? Shooting indoors with the 50 can be a bit too tight which leaves me falling back to my slower zooms.

I'd recommend to go with one lens at a time (I vote the 85 1.8). See where it fits with your shooting, what you like (or don't) about it, etc. Also, try your 17-40 at 28 & 35 to see which might work better for you. And while you debate & research your WA selection, keep learning/experimenting with flash techniques (bounce, diffuse, etc.). You can frequently get some good flash results that don't blow the mood.

Tough call on getting 28 1.8 sooner rather than a 35L later. IF you will use the focal length frequently enough, the L is hard to beat and worth the wait. But, if you feel like you are missing shots because you lack a fast WA, well the 28 is less than half the L's price & is a very good piece of glass!

--
Lyin' Pete used to do this all by touch...