Okay, I've been here on the forums for a while now and I've received lots of great advice. My kit is starting to come together nicely and I'm having lots of fun delving deeper and deeper into photography.
My dilemma: what do I get between the 24L and 135L?
I was more or less set on the ZE 50 Makro-Planar, but find out more and more that the lens doesn't have the distinctive 3D-rendering that Zeiss is known for. I really liked this in my ZE 35 f/2, so I started doubting. This 2/50 that I wanted for so long, is it really what I need?
I use the 24L (Mark 1) as a general walkaround on my 40D, while the 135L is used for my tele needs. I like to shoot general land/cityscapes with my moderate wide-angle 24L (38 mm full frame equivalent). I would like a lens for shooting people and in a simple studio somewhere around 50mm.
So far, I've come up with the following options:
1. Purchase the ZE 50 Makro-Planar
2. Purchase the ZE 50 1.4 and upgrade the 24L1 to 24L2
3. Purchase the ZE 50 1.4 and change the 24L1 to ZE 21
4. Purchase the ZE 50 1.4 and keep the rest of the money in my pocket
I'm quite happy with my 24L1 at the moment, so going to the Mark 2 is not an absolute necessity to me. The TS-E that is still found in my signature will be sold off this coming weekend.
My budget is around €1000. I would greatly appreciate some insights besides the valuable information that I've received from a few members on the boards already. I've posted 4 options, but alternatives are very welcome as well. I would like to stick with primes.