sdsr said:
As someone else has suggested, unless 2.8 isn't fast enough you may want to consider the 100L instead of an 85 - the Canon 85s, whatever other virtues they plainly have, suffer horribly from blueish fringing (different from the standard purple CA) wide open around pale objects that aren't quite in focus. I've never seen that (or any other visible flaw for that matter) with my 100L, whose only flaw is one all macro lenses have - it doesn't focus fast if you switch suddenly from a close subject to a distant one (or vice versa). And, thanks to its greater focal length and very short minimal focus distance, you can conjure up marvelous background blur that gives the 85L and 135L a run for their money (for all I know all this is true of the non-L 100mm macro too). Its advantage over the the Sigma 85mm lens (which is otherwise excellent - or at least the copy I rented was) is greater mechanical consistency - i.e. you will be less likely to need to return it. The 100L's advantage over all the 85mm and other 100mm lenses for Canon is that it has IS, which can be useful.
As for 35mm, I've not used the 35mm L. The 35mm IS is excellent, as is the Sigma. both of which I rented when they were new. The advantage of the former is its IS; the advantage of the latter, aside from the obvious speed factor, is its superior performance with regard to coma - which matters if you do much shooting in low light where there are small, bright points of light; this is nicely shown in the respective reviews at lenstip. (Unable to decide which one's relative advantages mattered to me more, I procrastinated until the ridiculous short-lived Adorama price reduction on the 28mm IS occurred and bought one of those instead - it's excellent too.)
yes...I agree..............
by the way...the non-L macro performs pretty similar to the L - I.S. version
my DO-ALL kit is a 14mm II, sigma 35 f1.4 (one of the best performing lenses I have owned) and the 100L because it does so much...
MAYBE the 135 f2 or maybe the 85L II ... but these are specialized and yes they are great..
but to go for a walk in Portland, Paris or Chicago... I want ultra wide (14), ultra-fast normal(35 sig) and maybe a bit of telephoto from the 100L macro... for a close up museum or flower shot
these do most of what I need....and have nearly flawless delivery
14L II has removable fringing but NO distortion, Sigma has NO ISSUES IMO, 100 macro is not as fast aperture as ...say ....85L or 135L but ...as stated here ...can get close and MAYBE derive more back-blur than the other two teles... 100L is plenty fast to focus... if you dont ask it to go from 8" to 100 feet in an instant..and back again
the kit is small...
but
if really small is wanted try 14L II, 35 I.S. and 85/100 non-L(but they have fringing wide open..)
I.S. becomes very useful on the 100mm length... with no optical issues IMO
nothing touches the 35 sigma ...that has autofocus...
I await Canon's re-attempt at a re-release ...another try...with a 35mm L II ....
of course the price will be 2-3 times the sigma....