help buying "rebate" lens for new 5D

I have been shooting with a 10D for three+ years now (over 50K clicks) and still love it, but the double rebates have finally gotten to me, and I’m going to buy a 5D, and I need some lens advice.

I have pretty good glass: the 17-40L, 24-70L and 70-200 f/4 L zooms and the 50 1.8 II, so I don’t really NEED a new lens, but since the double rebates mean that a $300 lens is virtually “free” I’m going to get one of the following: EF85 1.8, EF100 2.0, or EF100 2.8 macro.

I shoot pretty much anything I can get in front of my camera, from landscapes and nature to street shots and portraits, though I don’t do sports and haven’t done much macro/closeup (but might like to–the 24-70 gets pretty close up). I am thinking of this new lens as something I might take when I want to travel light and don’t want to carry my full kit, something that will give me more low-light possibilities than the zooms, and for candid/portrait use away from home.

I have been reading posts here and on the Fred Miranda forums, and as I understand it, each of these lenses is “almost L” quality, or at least all three have very good IQ. From what I’ve read, the 85 has some PF, but the bokeh is great. The macro capability of the 2.8 macro is attractive, but I will lose some of the low-light and bokeh possibilities of the 85/1.8, and this lens is a little less light/compact than the other two. The 100 2.0 seems a compromise between the two, and I can’t figure out whether, if I forgo the macro of the 2.8, it has any advantages over the 85.

If anyone has some specific points about the virtues of one of these three lenses that would help me decide, that would be great.

Thanks,

Bob
--
Bob Gates, Syracuse NY USA
http://bobgatesphoto.com

I have the 85mm f/1.8 and 100mm f/2.8 Macro, but don't have the 100 f/2. I do, however have the 135mm f/2.

The 100mm Macro is a VERY slow focusing lens, so although you could use it for some other things, it isn't as good of a general use lens in my opinion.

For a general walk around lens then, the 85 f/1.8 or 100 f/2 are pretty close. The 85mm, in my experience, is sharper at f/2 which is where I usually use it. I do shoot sports though, and thats where I usually use the 85mm. If you can swing the 135 f/2, it is a great lens to bring for travel when you want a little more reach, but don't want to carry a big zoom. It works with the TC1.4 to give you a great couple of focal lengths, at very low light. Short of carting around a 200 f/1.8, nothing else comes close.

Outside of all that discussion, I'd probably get the 85 1.8, as its a very compact and light lens.

--
Regards, Mike - Lot's of Canon Stuff

Photographer in the Northeast? NorthEastFoto.com

If you want to get into Macro go for the 100F2.8 if not, I would go with the 85mm F1.8, if you find you don't use it, it is a popular lens and you could sell it for close to what you bought it for.

Mike Smith

--
---
****************************************

'Giving a camera to Diane Arbus is like putting a live grenade in the hands of a child.'
Norman Mailer (b. 1923), U.S. author. Newsweek (New York, 22 Oct. 1984)

You'll get many glowing opinions just like Mike's about the 85 1.8.

I have the 100 2.0 instead, and while I can't compare it directly to the 85, it is fantastic. I imagine the only advantage it has over the 85 is the 15mm extra reach, which might very well be a selling point for the needs you describe, especially on FF 5D. You could travel with your 17-40 or 24-70 and the 100.

My 100 does have some CA wide open at extreme contrast points (e.g. specular highlights), but it disappears stopped down.

Nothing new here, but just thought I'd chime in.

--
-----------------------
Andrew Melvin Helmboldt

...it's an exceptionally good portrait lens, and the extra little bit of length compared to the 85/1.8 gives a slightly longer, and for some more comfortable, working distance. The relative scarcity and lack of reviews of the 100/2 is simply due to the fact that it's a bit too long for portraits on APS-C; also lots of people buy the 100/2.8 macro first, then choose the 85/1.8 over the 100/2 to complement it, simply because having two 100s doesn't seem to make sense (which is actually rather flawed logic).

Of the three, the 100/2.8 macro is arguably the most versatile, but if you think you want a portrait lens rather than a macro, I'd go for the 100/2. But the most important thing to realise is that you'd probably be delighted with any of the three.
Andy

Those are all good additional points. I hadn't thought about slow focusing on the macro, and I think that issue, along with the 2.8 fstop, will eliminate it, since macro isn't really a priority for me, just a "nice to have too."

Now it's between the small extra reach of the 100 vs. the small extra fstop on the 85. Looks like pretty much a coin flip at this point, but I'm leaning toward the 85, since it would be great to have 1.8 on the 5D with high ISO setting for extremely low-light situations. I never go above ISO 400 on my 10D and am looking to much higher ISO when needed on the 5D.

Bob
--
Bob Gates, Syracuse NY USA
http://bobgatesphoto.com

Thanks very much. You were writing/posting that just as I wrote the post below, and now you have swayed me back toward the 100 2.0! But it's great to know that either of them will give me a good extra lens.

Bob
--
Bob Gates, Syracuse NY USA
http://bobgatesphoto.com