[salubrious_k]

I'm off to the states in a month to visit some relatives and I've put aside a bit of money to purchase some lens for my 350D.

At the moment I am completely and utterly set on getting the Canon 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro. Everything I read about it suggests it's an excellent lens and I really want a macro lens, and like the fact that it can double as a neat telephoto (as you can see below, it should complement my existing lenses nicely). This should cost me about £250 in the states.

I'm also considering treating myself and getting another lens, I probably wouldn't want to spend anymore than a further £250 (or roughly $470 in yankee pounds). And from reading various reviews, I'm quite keen on the Canon 85mm f/1.8 USM.

Now my question is whether it is worth getting this lens next? Is it too close in focal length to the 100mm I plan to get? Maybe the fact that I can stop down (or is it up?) a further 1.33 stops to f/1.8 makes it worth it even considering it's similar focal length?

Are there any other lens that I should be considering? I am not adverse to the idea of getting another zoom, it's just that I always constantly amazed at the quality of my 50mm f/1.8 after using my 17-40mm L - Yes it's "L" glass but those primes are soooooo sweet!

[T0MAT01]

Originally Posted by salubrious_k

Now my question is whether it is worth getting this lens next? Is it too close in focal length to the 100mm I plan to get? Maybe the fact that I can stop down (or is it up?) a further 1.33 stops to f/1.8 makes it worth it even considering it's similar focal length?

The question is, how often do you think you'll need the 85 and 100mm range?
If you'll use each one often enough then it's worth the money but if one will sit with it's caps on while the other gets used most of the time then it's not.

You're the only one who knows how valuable f1.8 is to you over f2.8, since I see you already have both available to you. Do you shoot indoors/low light very often?

Personally I think I'd look to spend the extra on a 1.4x or a 2x tele converter, meaning the 100mm macro would see some extra use as a longer telephoto lens, but then that's just me and you may have no use at all for such a lens.

[Radiohead]

I'd get the macro, and pick up a used 70-200/4L for around £370.

[salubrious_k]

Thanks for the advice so far. The 70-200 f/4 isn't something I'd considered yet, as I was pretty set on primes and I'd forgotten that that lens nearly falls into my price range.

I've never had a telephoto zoom and I haven't yet got into sports or nature photography so I'm not absolutely sure it would be a well used lens. Also I am quite keen on getting a fast lens (I just love the fast aperture given to me by the 50mm). But then if I had a telephoto zoom it would open up a whole new world of photography to me.

@TOMATO1 - You give good advice. I do shoot indoors and in low light quite often, I'm also a sucker for good bokeh. Again I haven't considered a tele converter whatsoever either, so I will look into this.

Please keep the advice and suggestions coming, this is all very useful, thank you!

[T0MAT01]

Originally Posted by salubrious_k

@TOMATO1 - You give good advice.

Steady on there!!

[dood]

As far as I am aware the teleconverters only work on lenses that have a focal length of 135mm or more, the exceptions being the 70-200 Ls. Perhaps they work on other lenses too but would then lose AF? I suggest you find out more before just assuming that they can be used on the 100mm or 85mm.

personally I wouldn't get both the 100 and 85. How about 85 for its wide aperture and add extension tubes for macro. Then you can get a dedicated telezoom when you're ready for that.

[Radiohead]

Originally Posted by salubrious_k

Thanks for the advice so far. The 70-200 f/4 isn't something I'd considered yet, as I was pretty set on primes and I'd forgotten that that lens nearly falls into my price range.

I've never had a telephoto zoom and I haven't yet got into sports or nature photography so I'm not absolutely sure it would be a well used lens.

The 70-200mm range is absolutely perfect for portraiture. Don't discount it because of any perceived slowness.

Unless you're always shooting in very low light an f4 is perfectly fine and the weight and size make it hand-holdable at lower speeds than a 70-200 f2.8.

[tomson]

Originally Posted by dood

As far as I am aware the teleconverters only work on lenses that have a focal length of 135mm... I suggest you find out more before just assuming that they can be used on the 100mm or 85mm.

I use a TC on my 85mm occasionally . Works fine.

If you're into primes then I don't see having a 85mm and a 100mm being a problem. Couple them with your 50mm and something wider and you'll have a useful range.

[salubrious_k]

Thanks for all these replies, it is giving me a lot of food for thought!

See my thoughts on all your replies below. Although one further thing - super wide angle is something that I'd be quite keen on as well, is there a lens I could consider for that (bear in mind that I don't like the idea of getting an EF-S fit lens)

Originally Posted by Radiohead

The 70-200mm range is absolutely perfect for portraiture.

I see you have a 5D, does this also stand for the 1.6X crop factor that I have with my 350D?

Originally Posted by tomson

If you're into primes then I don't see having a 85mm and a 100mm being a problem. Couple them with your 50mm and something wider and you'll have a useful range.

Well my range would then be:
17-40 f/4
50 f/1.8
85 f/1.8
100 f/2.8
I'm hoping that I'd find enough of a difference in focal length between the 85 and 100 as they both sound like such great lenses. The 85 seems to be widely regarded as the best non-L prime lens, and the 100 would open up the world of macro photography to me

Originally Posted by dood

How about 85 for its wide aperture and add extension tubes for macro.

I had originally considered extension tubes, but then I'd had second thoughts when I'd read about the focal point moving closer and closer to the lens, and how this can be awkward when shooting insects (as they may fly away) or can take away from the available light. Also, I think I prefer the idea of a macro lens that can focus on infinity as well, so in the case where I'm taking a macro shot and suddenly see another shot at some distance that is time dependent, I would still be able to shoot it (given that the focal length would be acceptable).

[tomson]

Originally Posted by salubrious_k

one further thing - super wide angle is something that I'd be quite keen on as well, is there a lens I could consider for that (bear in mind that I don't like the idea of getting an EF-S fit lens)

I wouldn't dismiss EF-S lenses just yet - the quality of some of them is superb. The 2 I use both perform brilliantly - I recently sold a couple of L lenses and returned a 16-35 as the 17-55 IS outperformed them all. And my 10-22 is a joy to use - yes it distorts like hell at 10mm but that's all part of the fun with ultra-wides (saying that, it's distortion is a lot less pronounced than many other UWs)

I'll definitely be keeping a EF-S body for a while yet - Canon don't offer anything equal to the 17-55 in a standard EF mount.

[salubrious_k]

@tomson - I'm not dismissing EF-S, it's just that as my next camera upgrade (in 2 years or so) I'd like to upgrade to the 5D (or the equivalent at the time). And as I'm really crap at selling things on eBay (by that I mean, I always say to myself that I could do it, but have never done so), I don't really want to get a lens that I know I'll have to sell in two years.

I see you have the 85mm 1.8, what do you think of that lens? Is it as good as I read?