choices: suggestions for two lenses for my line-up

Ugh, choices, choices.


Now, I'm not in the position that I have to buy lenses right away. In fact it's the opposite, I'm just about to save up some money. I figure that by the end of the summer, I believe my budget will allow for two new lenses.

What I feel that I miss in my current line-up is the following:


1. Macro capabilities. Perhaps macro tubes would be enough for this. I would use it for abstract photography, which is something I'm into.

2. Some kind of all-round zoom. I love my primes, but it's good to have on occassion. Preferrably longer than wider, i.e. rather 24-70 than 17-50.

3. A concert lens with a bit more reach than the 50 1.4. I'm thinking either of the following: 85 1.8, 100 2 or 135 2.

4. Something with reach, that I can use when I'm outdoors. I like to take pictures of foliage, houses and such. A 70-200 might be good for this, but also a longish prime.


Do you have any suggestions?

You didn't mention budget.

85mm f1.8 and 100 macro. that means that you have the poor man crop trinity. 28 1.8, 50 1.4, 85 1.8 (which gives you 45mm, 85mm, and 135). its a beautiful set. the 100 macro is really fun! i use it to take pictures of eyes. lol

forget zooms unless they have IS. such as the 17-55mm f2.8 IS. i'm going to end up selling them to upgrade to L primes. but thats 2 years down the road.

gasrocks wrote in post #7467890
You didn't mention budget.

I'd imagine somewhere around $500-700.

Canon 100mm Macro and 85mm f/1.8

If want to save a bit, Sigma 105mm macro or Tamron 90mm instead of Canon 100mm. Either would be ~$150 less.

dima1109 wrote in post #7469600
Canon 100mm Macro and 85mm f/1.8

That's two calls already for 100mm macro and 85 1.8. Care to share your arguments?

spelunker wrote in post #7470215
That's two calls already for 100mm macro and 85 1.8. Care to share your arguments?

Canon 100mm Macro may well be one of the sharpest lenses Canon makes right now. The only reason it's not an L is because there is a 180mm L Macro, and they can't be both L. It's a great lens, super sharp, fast autofocus, and 1:1 macro capability.

85mm f/1.8 is praised for its sharpness and lightning-fast autofocus. It may well be the best band for the buck in the entire Canon lineup, even better than the nifty fifty. It performs very well wide open, too. A great low light lens, and a great choice for indoor shots - basketball, volleyball, concerts, performances, etc.

ext. tubes work pretty well w/a 85 or 50mm & they will still AF, although I prefer to MF by shifting forward/back. not a bad choice if you are on a budget. I have the kenko set. the 85 is pretty nice, provides good reach on a crop body, and should work for your concerts. the 135 might be out of your budget. the 85 and 100 might be a bit redundant in FL though.

your budget limits you when it comes to long lenses...
1. Tamron 28-75 and Canon 100/2, 2.8 macro if you don't need the speed.
2. 200/2.8 or 70-200/4, or stretch and get a 135/2.

More options open up if you're willing to go with a slower zoom...28-135 and 28-105 II are relatively cheap and have good optics.

My pics:

60 / 2.8 macro:

http://www.pbase.com/j​oemama/60macrogallery

85 / 1.8 (my most used on 1.6x, but you may prefer the 100 / 2, which is my choice for FF, since the 50 / 1.4 you have and 60 / 2.8 macro may be too close to 85mm for you):

http://www.pbase.com/j​oemama/85mm_gallery

As for a longer mid zoom, don't make a decision until you see how the upcoming SIgma 24-70 / 2.8 HSM fares.

toxic wrote in post #7472539
your budget limits you when it comes to long lenses...
1. Tamron 28-75 and Canon 100/2, 2.8 macro if you don't need the speed.
2. 200/2.8 or 70-200/4, or stretch and get a 135/2.

More options open up if you're willing to go with a slower zoom...28-135 and 28-105 II are relatively cheap and have good optics.

The budget was an estimate, I might be able to stretch out.

Yeah, zooms aren't a major concern. I just figured I could have something around for the convenience, so 28-135 would do. I'm really a prime person for all things concidered.


I suppose my headache lies in the choice of FL for the longish prime/s. Here are my thoughts on different combinations:


1. 85 1.8 + 100mm macro: I like this. I think the 85 would be great for the concerts I visit and it would also be a great FL when I go FF. Then with the 100mm macro I would I bit mor reach still and macro functions. On the other hand, I would feel a bit silly to have five lenses yet only cover 18-100mm.

2. 85 1.8 + 135 + tubes: Again, not a half-bad decision if I would afford it. I would have a good concert length, I would have more reach for outdoors and macro. Then again it is costy which brings me to alternative 3.

3. 100mm 2 + tubes: Something of compromise of the suggestion above. Still it would give me twice the reach I have now.