$500 to spend?

Alright so, I have $500 to spend on a new piece of gear.

Here's what I'm thinking...

85mm 1.8
used 70-200 f4 NON IS
used 17-40L
100 2.8 macro (non L, non IS)

I'm leaning to the 85 1.8. I'm skeptical on the 70-200 because I can't afford the IS, same for the macro.

My current gear is listed in my tagline. I shoot portraits, events, and some but very few landscapes, and nature shots.

I'm open to suggestions!

I'm not sure I could live without a wide angle. But the 85mm provides the best over all quality, in my bag

hes gone wrote in post #15947753
=he's gone;15947753]I'm not sure I could live without a wide angle. But the 85mm provides the best over all quality, in my bag

that's what I'm thinking about the 85...
the 70-200 f4 is tempting..but no IS

What do you shoot?

If only a 24-105 could be had for $500 . . . you're only a couple hundred away from getting a nice used copy.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #15947788
If only a 24-105 could be had for $500 . . . you're only a couple hundred away from getting a nice used copy.

i know! I would love this lens. Not sure I can spare the extra ~$250

Tony_Stark wrote in post #15947774
What do you shoot?

EmilyLipscomb wrote in post #15947716
I shoot portraits, events, and some but very few landscapes, and nature shots.

It seems like you have two very similar lenses.

I would probably get a general purpose zoom like the 24-105mm. You could probably find a used one close to your price range.

The 17-40mm is a great lens for landscapes and architecture.

The 85mm 1.8 is a great lens but you seem to lacking in versatility and I would fill that gap first if it was me.

EDIT:

EmilyLipscomb wrote in post #15947794
i know! I would love this lens. Not sure I can spare the extra ~$250

I have seen them used in the ~$600 range sometimes. Still above your budget though.

Tony_Stark wrote in post #15947774
What do you shoot?

portraits, events, and some but very few landscapes, and macro nature shots
(I just rent the L macro and wide-angles...)

I think for your use the 100 f/2 is a better choice than the 100 2.8 macro. The f/2 is smaller, faster, light and focuses faster. I had the macro, it can hunt sometimes, even in good light, even with the limiter engaged. I shoot stuff that moves, not macro, so I sold it and got the 85 1.8. The 100 f/2 is its cousin. Both are excellent lenses.

Get the 100mm Macro.. (The non macro is an F2 and is a little cheaper.. )

Portraits, events, nature shots... All sounds like the 70-200 would be more appropriate for you.

Lack of IS is only a problem indoors (but then you should use flash indoors anyway) and at or after sunset/before sunrise. Especially on a 5DII where you can use 6400 ISO in a pinch.

Personally however, I would go 17-40 first because I like wide angle.

But what I'd really do is get rid of the 50/1.4 and buy the 24-105, because the 50 will sell for pretty much exactly what you need to afford the 24-105, and I dislike that lens a lot (I wouldn't say hate, but it comes close).

Sirrith wrote in post #15947812
Portraits, events, nature shots... All sounds like the 70-200 would be more appropriate for you.

Lack of IS is only a problem indoors

Not necessarily. I had a 70-200 f4 non-IS. While I loved the image quality and sharpness, I just couldn't live without the IS, so, sadly, I sold it. Many times when we shoot outdoors, we are doing so under a forest canopy, or in other areas of total, complete shade . . . or at twilight, etc. And often we are not shooting in situations that allow for tripod or monopod usage. The lack of IS can be a real deal-breaker, even for an outdoors shooter like myself.

Sirrith wrote in post #15947812
Portraits, events, nature shots... All sounds like the 70-200 would be more appropriate for you.

Lack of IS is only a problem indoors (but then you should use flash indoors anyway) and at or after sunset/before sunrise. Especially on a 5DII where you can use 6400 ISO in a pinch.

Personally however, I would go 17-40 first because I like wide angle.

But what I'd really do is get rid of the 50/1.4 and buy the 24-105, because the 50 will sell for pretty much exactly what you need to afford the 24-105, and I dislike that lens a lot (I wouldn't say hate, but it comes close).

I'm very hesitant to get the 70-200 f4 without the IS...I think I would regret it.

How about the 85 1.8 and a flash like the YN568?

EmilyLipscomb wrote in post #15947868
I'm very hesitant to get the 70-200 f4 without the IS...I think I would regret it.

I tend to agree with you on the IS. My 70-200 is f/2.8 and heavy. That said, I don't think I could hold the f/4 version steady at 200mm, on a consistent basis. My age could be a factor in that, though. I am sneaking up, quickly, on 60.