Okay, so I own 24-105, and I had plenty of help from you guys, and I realized that getting a macro is a must... but what then???
So, my ideal choice would be 85mm 1.8, a macro, 35mmL, 135mm L, 24-70 2.8 II and 70-200 2.8 IS II.
But I can't afford them all, not to mention I plan on getting a MF camera in the future, but even then I'd like to own a Canon, as it does have it's strengths.
On my 24-105 I mostly shoot at 60-70mm, 105mm, 35mm, in that order.
Do I get a 100mm USM macro and another lens? Or just 100mm L macro?
So: 100mm USM macro + 70-200mm 4L (how sharp is it? especially compared or 2.8 is II?)
or 100mm USM macro + save up for 135L
or 100mm USM macro + 85mm 1.8 (not only is 85mm 1.2 pricey, but it is also distorted, so no tnx)
or 100mm USM macro + 50mm (I had a 1.8, it gave wonderful images, but I couldn't use it professionally, and the 1.4 has horrible distortion, I can't have that)
or just the 100mm macro L
I hate distortion, it has given me so much head ache on 24-105. And I am very fond of sharpness, there is no such thing as "too sharp" for me.
What I wouldn't like is a lens that has lots of micro sharpness, but little contrast overall.
And please, please don't take wide-open bokeh or sharpness into consideration, I NEVER shoot wide open.
Now, I know I should test these ,but I can't afford to rent them all, not to mention that it takes using a lens for a while in order to see it's strengths and flaws, so that's why I appreciate you experience so much.
So, is the L 100 Macro worth it? Or shall I get a 100 USM macro and another lens? Perhaps get the USM macro and save up for 135mm?