What lens to get next....?

[jhamerphoto]

Sigma 70mm f2.8 macro? Approx 105mm with crop factor, and it gives you a little more flexibility for focal range, having a 1:1 macro function and everything. (Actually, it was rated even better than 1:1 by PopPhoto) Plus it has a focus limiter if you don't need the macro settings. I don't know about USD, but in Canada it retails about $550.

 

[ZballZ]

Canon 70-200mm F/4 "L" - $600
Canon 55-250mm F/4-5.6 IS - $250

Both good tele options. The 55-250 might be a great way to fill your gap and have image stabilization to boot.

I agree. And it is cheap. But would you think that it is too slow? Portraits at 4-5.6? Would they have good background seperation?

 

[OreoCookie]

I agree. And it is cheap. But would you think that it is too slow? Portraits at 4-5.6? Would they have good background seperation?

Cheap original manufacturer tele zooms are low quality, I'd advise against it. The larger the aperture, the smaller the depth of field at a given focal length (what you call background separation). Image stabilizers won't give you any advantage here.

I'd have a look at the two lenses I've recommended before. Canon's 4/70-200 is a very nice lens but has (IMO) a full-frame centric focal length range.

 

[apearlman]

Figure out what FL you need.

hang on!!!

Sigma 28-105 2.8/4

approx. 300$

I don't think you'll be able to compare a 28-105 and a 70-200. Those lenses are for totally different purposes.

You need to decide what focal length (FL) you want to cover, and then people can be very helpful pointing you to the best lenses in that range.

Here's a focal length visualizer tool:
http://www.usa.canon.com/app/html/EFLenses101/focal_length.html

I don't see why you're hung up on the 50-70mm "gap" if you choose a 70-200. Even if you have a 55-200, you're still not going to use it indoors. I have nothing between 55 and 70, and somehow I live a full and complete life. Worst case, shoot with your 50 and crop.

Andrew