my strategy for next lens purchase(s)

you and me both. if these things were just a tad cheaper (or if i made considerably more money), wouldn't be as big a deal.

dipps wrote in post #7833224
i'm curious why you chose the f/4 over the f/2.8 though (regarding the 70-200mm)? i understand there's a weight/size difference, but my thinking has been that, if i'm gonna spend that much, might as well get the faster lens right off the bat so i don't wind up regretting not doing some some time down the road..... right wrong or indifferent, that's just been my line of thinking.

There's a substantial weight difference, which is a big deal for those who have to walk around with it a lot.

canonnoob wrote in post #7833245
not true... it depends on the lighting and where he is at.. 2.8 can be enough..

He's not at a college or professional arena, so most likely, f/2.8 won't or will barely be sufficient.

Back to the OP: My suggestions:
18-55 IS to f/2.8 standard zoom, IF it's holding you back somehow
50mm f/1.8 to 35/2 or 28/1.8 or 30/1.4
70-300 to 85/1.8 or 100/2 or whatever focal length that makes sense for you, and/or save for 100-400

as for having both the 100/2 and 100 macro, that's fine. one is a fast prime suitable for sports, one is a macro with the traditional slow AF.

thanks for the tips. i'll have to research the 85 and 100mm fast lenses further. were i to judge my amazon reviews, the 85 seems far more popular. i'll have to dig thru the forums around here some more to read up on what everyone has to say, as well as sample photos.

thanks again.

dipps wrote in post #7833092
reading my own post.... how much sense does it make to get a 100mm 2.8 macro lens alongside of a 100mm f/2 lens (for indoor sports)?

From all the research that I've done on the 85 1.8, 100 f/2, and 100 f/2.8 macro. The 100 f/2 is the better of the two (85). As for the 100 macro it's AF is slower so probably won't be as suitable for sports.

bsaber wrote in post #7834245
As for the 100 macro it's AF is slower so probably won't be as suitable for sports.

ok, that's cool, as i'd be looking to pick up for shooting macro photography... i just didn't want to spend money on two lenses that were seemingly close to the same. thanks for the clarification.

edited the first post to include additional options and suggestions.

oy, if i wind up getting that 17-55, hope like heck i don't have to go thru THIS fiasco.....

https://photography-on-the.net …?p=7415452&post​count=1613

On the 85 vs 100: most people get the 85 since 100 is quite a bit longer on APS-C, which makes it more specialized...and the ones that want reach get the 135/2.

toxic wrote in post #7836242
On the 85 vs 100: most people get the 85 since 100 is quite a bit longer on APS-C, which makes it more specialized...and the ones that want reach get the 135/2.

That's very true

toxic wrote in post #7836242
On the 85 vs 100: most people get the 85 since 100 is quite a bit longer on APS-C, which makes it more specialized...and the ones that want reach get the 135/2.

ok, so let me get this straight (i'm still trying to study up and understand on the crop factor stuff). on a 450D, it's a 1.6x multiplier (aps-c), which effectively yields a 136mm zoom on the 85, and a 160mm zoom on the 100.... correct? and the "crop sensor" terminology comes from the fact that it's not actually multiplying the zoom, it's just a smaller sensor (in comparison to 35mm) and it's "cropping out" a smaller (centered) portion of the image that a full sensor would provide....... ?

Why both the 100mm f/2 and the macro? If you're thinking of getting the Macro anyway down the road, get the 85/1.8 instead of the 100/2. JMHO.

dipps wrote in post #7837458
ok, so let me get this straight (i'm still trying to study up and understand on the crop factor stuff). on a 450D, it's a 1.6x multiplier (aps-c), which effectively yields a 136mm zoom on the 85, and a 160mm zoom on the 100.... correct? and the "crop sensor" terminology comes from the fact that it's not actually multiplying the zoom, it's just a smaller sensor (in comparison to 35mm) and it's "cropping out" a smaller (centered) portion of the image that a full sensor would provide....... ?

That is correct.

Rudi wrote in post #7837864
Why both the 100mm f/2 and the macro? If you're thinking of getting the Macro anyway down the road, get the 85/1.8 instead of the 100/2. JMHO.

It would be redundant to get both the f/2 and the macro. If you plan on getting the macro regardless then go for the 85.

thanks. and noted. i iz learning a lot the past few days. only problem is, the more i learn, the more i research each lens i'm interested in, the harder i cling to my hard-earned money.

argh.

bsaber wrote in post #7838767
It would be redundant to get both the f/2 and the macro. If you plan on getting the macro regardless then go for the 85.

Not necessarily. The 100/2 can do things the 100/2.8 can't since it has an extra stop and fast AF motor.

If the OP likes 100mm, then he likes 100mm. If he doesn't, there's 85 and 135 to try as well.

Or maybe get the 100 f/2 for the reach and a 60mm macro... or a sigma 150mm macro. Just a thought.

of the macro lenses, i'm pretty solid on the 100 2.8.