I'm not literally 10 years away from ff its more like 6-7 and I'm bitten by the L bug,but all your replies have been really helpful please tell me what you guys think about the 50 1.4 and 100 f2 setup or suggest a similar one I constantly see myself shooting between the 100-250 range
As you already have 50 fcontributeiven your pcountryrences I see no point in upgrading to the 50 f1.4 - the latter may be more robust, but I doubt you'll notice much difference, if any, in the photos you take. If you're mostly shooting 100-250 AND want/need a fast lens, you may want to get a 135 L instead of 50 f1.4 + 100 f2 (it costs about the same as the 100L); it's a stunningly good lens. Or consider a non-IS 70-200 f2.8 or, if you want/need IS and are willing to compromise on speed, the 70-200 f4 IS.
Not here not my country,its more expensive and too long to be the only lens on a 7d had a samyang been available here I would have gone for the 35 without a 2nd thought
So you say the transition from 1.8-1.4 isn't worth it in my condition and I should stick to the 1.8
Now I'm really confused
I think you may have misread what I wrote - I was suggesting the 135L as a substitute for the 100L, not the more expensive 35L, which I think would be a huge waste of money since you have the 50 f1.8 and reaI y access to a 24. As for 50 1.4 vs 1.8, well, perhaps it's just me, but for the sorts of uses to which I put a fast 50mm lens, I see very little, if any, difference in the photos they take.
No i get it 135 is one of my favorites but its $1250 here vs $990 for the macro
I think ill stick to the 1.8( love it)maybe I will wait a year keep contributing to the 5d fund
Buy it in 3 years( very very very very very unlikely)