New body or new lens dilemma - advice needed

[Domski]

Hi,
So here's the million dollar question, I've got the 'green light' off the missus to spend some money on my photography gear & I'm not sure what direction to go in & hoping a few more seasoned photographers may be able to advise.

I'm not a pro, what I think you'd call a prosumer (more assumed talent & ability than actual), I shoot my kids, family, holidays etc, & I'm also the team photographer for my childrens football teams.

Here's what I have at the moment

40D, About 3 years old, about 6,000 actuations.
Nifty 50 f1.8
70-200L f2.8 is usm
17-85 f4-5.6 is usm
75-300 f4-5.6

My dilemma is do I.......................

Buy another body (probably 7D) & sell the 40D? (perhaps use for a new lens)
Buy a 7D & keep the 40D (I don't really need a back-up)
keep the 40D & invest in better glass (perhaps the 18-55 f2.8)

I've taken some great shots with the 40D, plenty hang on the walls in my home & the other parents from the footy are pleased with them, the issue is would I gain more keepers with the AF system of the 7D (also would allow tighter crops from further away)

As the football is just a junior level, the 200 just about has the reach I need, but would sometimes prefer a little more, but something like the 300L or 100-400L would pretty much be a 'just football' lens as it'd be too heavy & cumbersome to carry around (I think the nifty 250 may be on the cards for that)

Something like the 17-55 f2.8 or 17-40L f2.8 or 24-105L F4 may be a more 'multi tasker' ?

Any advice or past experience of others who've already gone through this would be greatly appreciated.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

18-55L would be nice if it existed. I'd get one today.

Frankly speaking you have nothing exciting under 70mm. I would be inclined to plug that gap first. 17-55, 24-105 or 24-70 would be good. Tamron 17-50 is a cheap alternative.
I'd also get rid of 75-300 and 17-85.

70-200 could get a 1.4x TC for more reach.

 

[Domski]

18-55L would be nice if it existed. I'd get one today.

Ooops, fixed that now (perhaps it was a premenition)

I'd also get rid of 75-300 and 17-85.

The 75-300 is like an ornament, can't remember last time I used it, but the 17-85 (as you've noticed) is the widest thing I've got & whilst it may not be the best IQ, I've taken shots I'm happy with & up to the point where I get something better, will have to stay.

70-200 could get a 1.4x TC for more reach.

I'd thought of that, but as the football is only on 1/4 sized pitches, the minimum of 98 (156 on my body) would mean I'd miss lots of shot's as they'd be too close.

 

[Craikeybaby]

Unless you feel that you are missing a lot of shots due to poor AF, I would go for the 18-55.

 

[odd jim]

There's no such thing as an 18-55 f/2.8? either? You mean 17-55 f/2.8? If so yes, buy it!