Help me out please

I've just sold my 70-300 and although the intention was to save the money, I've managed to convince myself that I need another lens(!) So I'm shopping around.

I have a Rebel XTi plus a Tamron 28-75 and a Canon 55-250, both of which I like and intend to keep. I take a lot of family photos - portraits and kids' activities - and I enjoy close-up work (flowers mostly) as well as sports photography (dog agility), both of which I'd like to develop. I've been thinking along the lines of a prime lens that would serve for portraits, macro and action shots, but I guess that's a bit much to hope for in a single lens. Possible choices would be the 85 f/1.8 or the 100 macro, but as I understand it, the 85 isn't ideal for macro work and the 100 doesn't focus fast enough for action. My budget is around $500.

On the other hand, I've also been considering a 70-200 f/4 IS. Now, I know it's way over budget, but I'm wondering whether it might be worth the stretch. It'd be good for portraits and sports, and seems pretty good for close-up work too. The f/2.8 IS version is out of the question, both price-wise and size-wise (I borrowed one and found it very heavy, although I was blown away by the results it produced). I'd definitely want IS on a lens of this length, so that eliminates the f/4 non-IS.

So what would you do? I find myself completely unable to decide one way or the other: prime or 70-200. If the 70-200 were in the $500 range it would be a no-brainer, but unfortunately that's not the case.

Help - all suggestions welcome.

get the 70-200 f4 l used for about 450-500
learn to use it w/o is [not that hard] and when you can afford to upgrade you can resell it for about what you paid for it

I would go for the 4 non-IS, but if you can afford the 4 IS, then go for the 2.8 non-IS. the 85 1.8 is a great choice for sports and portraits. My 70-200 is my bread and butter sports lens.

I don't think the 100mm macro is too slow with the AF for action shots. Just be sure to have the range switch on the non-macro position.

I agree. I would go for the 70-200 f4 non is. It is an amaziang lens especially for the money.

get the 85 1.8 and sigma 50mm 2.8 macro. You should be able to buy both of those used for around $500

Thanks for the suggestions guys. I think I'm going to try out a 70-200 F/4 non-is to see if I like it, and will look at the 100 macro too.

I think I'd try the 100/2 or the 85/1.8, plus a set of extension tubes for occasional macro use.

Or the 100/2.8 Macro USM without tubes, if you plan to do more macro shooting. (Alternatives: Sigma 70/2.8 and 105/2.8 macro lenses, Tokina 100/2.8 macro, Tamron 90/2.8 Macro. Note though, I think only Sigma HSM will give as good AF speed as the Canon 100/2.8 USM lens. Not sure if either of the Siggies I mentioned are HSM.)

You have the 55-250. Makes no sense to me to also have the 70-200/4.

The larger aperture prime lenses will also be more useful for portraiture.

For me, the biggest thing lacking from your kit is the wide range.

jr_senator wrote in post #6110169
I don't think the 100mm macro is too slow with the AF for action shots. Just be sure to have the range switch on the non-macro position.

what is the non-macro position of the range switch? is it 0.31-infinity or 0.48-infinity? i have the macro 100 but sad to say i still cant figure out how to use the range switch.

amfoto1 wrote in post #6114424
I think I'd try the 100/2 or the 85/1.8, plus a set of extension tubes for occasional macro use.
Or the 100/2.8 Macro USM without tubes, if you plan to do more macro shooting.(...)
You have the 55-250. Makes no sense to me to also have the 70-200/4.

For me, the biggest thing lacking from your kit is the wide range.

You're probably right about the 70-200. I enjoy the 55-250; the focal length suits the type of photography I seem to do mostly, and I don't see myself selling it, mainly because of the convenience factor. As for the 85 1.8, it's been on my wishlist for a while for winter dog agility (indoors), and I hadn't thought of using it with extension tubes for macro. It's certainly worth further investigation - thanks for the suggestion.

As regards the wide range, I honestly haven't missed it. I still have my old 18-55 kit lens that I could use in a pinch, but for now I don't seem to need it. When I bought my Tamron 28-75, I considered the 17-50 as well and in the end chose range over width, and haven't regretted it.

jeromego wrote in post #6114445
what is the non-macro position of the range switch? is it 0.31-infinity or 0.48-infinity? i have the macro 100 but sad to say i still cant figure out how to use the range switch.

If you are not shooting macro then the 0.48-infinity setting should be used for the sake of AF expediency. This keeps the AF system from running back and forth seeking the entire focus range. If, however, you will be shooting macro then the lens will need to focus as close as 0.31 and should be set accordingly.

get the 70-200 f4L + 500D close-up filter.

ceegee, extension tubes and closeup filters, I have used them through the years. They each have their pitfalls compared to a true macro lens. If you do some searching around the web you will find several sources that attest to the fast AF of the 100mm macro. I suspect that you could become frustrated with the tubes and filters and their limits not only focus range wise but IQ wise as well. Canon's 100mm macro is not of "L" lens build quality but is of very good build quality none the less. IQ wise, it's as good as it gets.

jr_senator wrote in post #6115160
ceegee, extension tubes and closeup filters, I have used them through the years. They each have their pitfalls compared to a true macro lens. If you do some searching around the web you will find several sources that attest to the fast AF of the 100mm macro. I suspect that you could become frustrated with the tubes and filters and their limits not only focus range wise but IQ wise as well. Canon's 100mm macro is not of "L" lens build quality but is of very good build quality none the less. IQ wise, it's as good as it gets.

Thank you, that's very helpful. I've found some nice action shots in the archives that were taken with the 100 macro. It seems like it might fit the bill. I'm going to try one out this week. Here in Canada, new ones are slightly over my budget ($600), so if I like the lens I'll probably look round for a used one.

ceegee wrote in post #6118204
Here in Canada, new ones are slightly over my budget ($600), so if I like the lens I'll probably look round for a used one.

I bought mine used. It was like new, mint condition for $400 some time back