Birthday coming up, help me pick my new lens...

Yes this is another one of these "help me choose which lens" posts. My birthday is coming up and I got the green light from the wife to get a new lens (within reason).

I've narrowed it down to a few options:
- 70-200 f4 or 70-200 f4 IS
- 135mm f2
- Sigma 35mm f1.4
- 100mm macro (L or non-L)

I'm leaning towards a 70-200 variant of some kind as I don't currently have anything longer than my 24-105 in my lineup. I don't do much sports shooting (at the moment) so this would basically be an all-around tele for me and possibly used for portraits, weddings, etc. The 70-200 2.8 II is out of the question, and I've read that the f4 IS is optically better than the first version 2.8. If I were to choose between the two (IS vs. non-IS), is there a huge difference in IQ between the two, enough to warrant double price for the IS? I know the advantages of IS, but is it really worth it?

The problem is I keep seeing all these sample photos from the 135 and the new Sigma 35 and I'm blown away by the sharpness.

And then I've always been intrigued with macro shots, which adds the 100mm into the mix, but I don't know how much I'd actually do it. It might just be more for detail product photography or weddings, although I've seen it used as a fairly nice portrait lens.

So let me hear your suggestions!

Out of all those, the 70-200 f4 IS is your best bet. It's the most versatile since you don't own any long lenses.

The 135L is awesome, but I would really get one after getting a 70-200 zoom.

This is so hard for anyone to give you a real answer. What is it that you want to shoot which is being limited by your current gear. Come back with that answer and then you might get some decent replies...other than that, why not just flip a coin.

If your convinced the 70-200 f/4 is better than the f/2.8 non-IS then I would recommend the f/4 IS so you can use the IS to obtain slower ss for low light. If your talking about doing multiple weddings there is no substitute for the f/2.8 even the non-IS.

I recommend the 70-200. The primes are great, but not as versatile as the 70-200 and finding the sweet spot for any lens will get you tack sharp images on the 70-200 as well.

I guess the one thing that I'm really lacking is reach. I have coverage at almost all the other focal lengths with my current lineup. I think I'm going to go for the f4
IS.

If it reach you are looking for then one of the 70-200 lenses. I think IS is important on the longer lenses so would go for the f/4 IS.

what body are you on?

steve126a wrote in post #15950672
If I were to choose between the two (IS vs. non-IS), is there a huge difference in IQ between the two, enough to warrant double price for the IS? I know the advantages of IS, but is it really worth it?

The f4 IS is a much newer lens than the f4 non-IS and has much better image quality as well as IS

I decided on the 70-200 f4 IS after seeing some of the breathtaking photos that others have captured with that lens in these threads.

The eerie part was, not 5 minutes after I placed my order, I received a call from my local camera shop saying they had gotten a shipment of Sigma 35mm 1.4s in and wanted to know if I was interested. I forgot that I had been on a waiting list for one for a few months. Sadly I had to turn him down as my credit card could not take another $900 hit right now.

I'm excited to pair this lens up with my 6D and see what it will do.

135....