Next lens please

Ok, I have took everyones advise and got the 70-200L IS and the 17-55 2.8 IS on my $2600 budget along with the 40D.
I have a small budget left, (sold a lens) and I need to really think about what prime I want to add with these two gems.
I am heavily considering the 85 1.8 and the Tamron 90 2.8 Macro.
I want something that will take very sharp portraits! If it doubles as a macro that is even better. But I want great portraits first.
So what I am looking at are as follows,
60mm 2.8 (really want to keep things on the EF side though)
80 1.8
Tamron 90 2.8
100 2.8
100 2.0

then smaller lenses choice would be the following but I really don't think I want to go that rout.
Sigma 50 1.4
canon 50 1.4

PLEASE everyone, do not suggest the canon 50 1.8, done had it, I didn't like it. It was the softest lens I ever owned. A bad copy? maybe, but I think I can do better and this is for my business now not play time!

Well the 85 1.8 is great for portraits. But, the 100 macro would be nice because it could double as a macro lens. Just depends whether or not you like that focal length for portraits.

Come on experienced peeps, I need to know what you all think about 60mm macro vs, 85mm 1.8 vs, 100mm macro vs, 90mm macro Tamron. For a nice, sharp, versatile lens specifically portraits.
I was leaning toward the 90, then to the 85, but now after reading and reading the 60 sounds like such a great lens. and it does feel my gap. I really like the sound of the low light of th 85 though since I have kids and one of them in sports.

The selective focus of the 85/1.8 can become addictive.

No question, it would be more versatile for that type of shooting. It's also more manageable indoors than a 100, where space might be a premium.

bohdank wrote in post #7583903
The selective focus of the 85/1.8 can become addictive.

.

What exactly do you mean by selective focus? I am a little confused by what you mean there, and what of the 60mm, would it not be just as good on space? I know it isn't a 1.8 but how often do you shoot portraits at 1.8?
I am just playing devils advocate because I know I would enjoy the F/1.8 of the 85 in other situations.

In my opinion (others disagree) an 85 or 100 mm lens on a 40D is a bit long for portraits. A 50 or 60 would work better.

The advantage to the 60 (besides the fact that it's a macro lens) is its sharpness. It's really, really, sharp. Very flat plane of focus, too.

-js

Thanks number six and bohdank.
With any luck I will be selling some stuff I don't need and go for the all mighty 85L

More input would still be nice folks.

FLASH, Pfft on another lens.

? that went right over my head.....

Sorry. Get a dedicated speedlite like a 580EX II or 430EX II or a used 580EX or 430EX. You have two really good lenses, but no dedicated speedlite.

"Buy a flash, you don't need more lenses..."

BigAlz1 wrote in post #7584231
What exactly do you mean by selective focus? I am a little confused by what you mean there, and what of the 60mm, would it not be just as good on space? I know it isn't a 1.8 but how often do you shoot portraits at 1.8?
I am just playing devils advocate because I know I would enjoy the F/1.8 of the 85 in other situations.

A few shots taken recently. These will never be printed so no editing was done other than some exposure adjustment..... nothing more. I just picked them quickly. All shot at 1.8/2

The first 2 shots are in our living room. It's nice to be able to blur out a dsitracting backround.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

......

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

So if the question really is 60mm or 85mm? Well I got both and I'd go for the 60 any day............ Multi purpose, I think the bokeh is on a par with the 85 and ( and it may be a big 'and'), you aren't as 'crowded' when taking portrait pics............. it's a macro - the 85 ain't.
Downside..............​. may be a little too sharp for portraits. You don't want to be showing every pore and thats what you stand you get.

But I like the 50mm and the 60's the closest you mention :P

Other, more experienced 'togs may dissagree, but thats my take.

Here is what 60mm at f2.8 will give you in terms of backround blur... compare with the similar framed shot I posted above. A noticeable difference, imo.

Indoors with object closer in the backround the difference is considerably more noticeable.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.