Which lenses for $1000?

Hi guys,
If I can get $1000 for lens purchase, what would you guys recommend? Some of the lenses that I have been eyeeing:
- Canon 24-105L f4 ~ as a better walkaround lense than the 28-105
- Canon 70-300 IS ~ just because I don't have the focal length
- Canon 70-200 f4 or the IS version ~ same reason as the 70-300
- Canon 50 f1.4 ~ as an upgrade to the nifty fifty
- Canon 85 f1.8 ~ longer reach for low light
- Canon 100 f2.8 macro ~ that will double as longer reach for low light & portrait.

I rented both the 24-105 & 70-300 for my recent trip to Oregon, I noticed that most of the time the 10-22 & 70-300 is the one that get the most play time. So I'm having 2nd thought about the 24-105 even though I really want to like it. It might be because I was shooting a lot of landscape though.

Also, we'll be expecting our first little one in May, so that's one of the reason for a new lens.

Of the 3 lenses that I have, I'm really loving the 10-22. That was the biggest push for me to go Canon instead of Noink since the Noink's version is close to $1000. Let me hear your opinion.

Option A
24-105 F4IS

Option B
100 2.8
85 1.8
50 1.4

I like the prime special personally!

But you said you like tele more.
Why not the 100-400L or 70-200 2.8 or F4 IS

I would say a 24-105 f/4 IS to replace your 28-105 as your standard lens. Of course I might be bias since I'm looking to sell

A telezoom would complete your range though. Personally I'd choose the 70-200 2.8 over your other choices...or the IS version if you can stretch your budget. Better for portraits and low light work.

I'd get the 70-200 f/4L IS. Just about the perfect zoom lens. Wonderful size and weight, extremely high image quality (as good as primes in this range), super fast autofocus, L class build and 4-stop IS. You can't get much better than that, and it fills a gap in your shooting.

The reason I wasn't considering any of the f/2.8 zoom (24-70 & the 2 70-200) is because I feel they'll be too heavy. I've tried on the 24-70 & the 70-200 non-IS and I really couldn't last long :P. I think for low light, I will go prime instead.

Livinthalife, do you think the 85 f/1.8 & 100 f/2.8 sort of the same? I mean if I get the 100 f/2.8, what would the 85 f/1.8 give me beside the faster stop? As for the tele option, 100-400 & f/2.8 will be too heavy for me, but the f4 IS is on my consideration list.

drjiveturkey, very tempting offer! But I don't know whether I can make up my mind before someone snatches it away.

I'd say the 70-200 since it covers a range you don't have. Maybe find a used non-IS version and sell/upgrade your normal zoom

Not considering the 17-55 f2.8 IS?

I would say get the 70-200 f/4 L IS

If not then go with the
70-200 f/4 L
and the
100 f/2.8 Macro (Double as a portrait lens)

Best of luck

How much did you use the 70-300 over 200mm. If seldom then the 70-200 f/4 IS is a good choice.

If you use it at 300 a lot, then go with the 70-300 IS and you'll have enough left over for a 430ex Flash!

You are missing a long lens... However...

If you are happy with the results of your 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 mid range zoom, I would recommend that you get the 70-200mm f/4L IS as your next lens. The 70-200mm f/4L IS is (IMO) one of the greatest lenses on the market today from any manufacturer. It delivers top-notch IQ; has lightning fast A/F; is reasonably light in weight and because of its outstanding IS system is a wonderfully versatile lens. I use my copy 3-4x more often than I ever used the non-IS model I had before because of my ability to hand hold this lens in lower light levels. I would not necessarily try to cut costs and purchase a non-IS model of this lens.

Your 28-105mm lens can give reasonable quality and the above combination will provide a wide focal range. You could always upgrade the 28-105mm to a different mid-range zoom later on. I often shoot with the 12-24mm Tokina, 24-70mm f/2.8L and the 70-200mm f/4L and enjoy that selection of focal lengths very much.

On the other hand, I usually recommend photographers to base their systems on a top-notch mid-range zoom lens, since most photography is accomplished in the mid-zoom ranges. The 24-105mm f/4L zoom would match up nicely with your 10-22mm wide angle and give you great IQ in the area that is used the most in photography. The 105mm equates to 168mm on a full frame camera which is a pretty nice focal length. Getting the 24-105mm would allow you to either sell your 28-105mm or to keep it as a back-up lens.

If I had the combination of 10-22mm; 24-105mm, and 50mm f/1.8, the next lens that I would probably look into getting is the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L zoom or a 200mm or 300mm prime to flesh out my selection of lenses with a long tele lens.

50mm 1.4 & 100mm 2.8. Both great in low light and super sharp primes. Keeps a little coin in your pocket.

How about the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro. Super sharp, fast, macro, great reviews, and less than $400?

30 1.4
135L

?

Thanks for all your input guys.. I'll try to respond more in detail a little later.. but I generally keeping away from the EF-S line for thinking of wanting to go FF later on.

Sigma 30 1.4
Canon 50 1.4
Canon 85 1.8