85 1.8 vs 100 f/2 vs 100 2.8 macro (non-L)

[echojs]

Hey all - I just upgraded from a Rebel 350 (still have) to the 5D3. I'm in somewhat of a quandary about which lenses to get. I'd like to have the best bang for the buck for wedding photography. I've only done one so far (last year) with the Rebel along with rented equipment. Here's what I have currently:

24-105L
70-200 f/4
ef-s 60mm (potentially selling unless I keep it to do macro on the Rebel until I can afford FF macro)
*sold my 10-22 as I want all lenses to work on FF*


Looking at:
35 1.4
50 1.4
85 1.8/100 2.0/100 2.8 non-L
135 2.0
24-70 2.8

I've looked at photos/digital picture's lens compare website etc. and it seems the 100 f2 is slightly sharper than the 85 1.8. From what I've read, supposedly macro lenses aren't as sharp as non-macro primes, ie 100 f2 vs 100 2.8 macro. Can anyone verify that? I also do want to get a macro eventually, so the dilemma is if I get the 100 2.8 macro, then I wouldn't want to get the 100 f2. But I would prefer 2.0 over 2.8. If I only had around $2000 to spend, what would your suggestions be in order of importance? I tested a 50 1.4 and loved the shallow DOP and sharpness considering the low price but haven't seen any of the others yet. Any and all advice would be extremely appreciated. Unfortunately I like all types of photography from landscape to people/candid and macro, which makes it hard to narrow down the lenses, but having a good selection for wedding photography is the goal right now.

Thanks! ;D

 

[unruled]

85mm 1.8 is amazing, on FF it will be a nice length too. Won't break the bank.

 

[briansquibb]

85 1.8 on ff

 

[Random Orbits]

I'd suggest reserving the 100mm range for the macro and selling the ef-s 60mm. I've never used the 100mm f/2, but the macro versions are very sharp already. I don't think you'd lose much by getting a macro (just 1 stop), but you'd gain the flexiblity of having a decent portrait length at f/2.8 with shooting details with one lens.

I'd also suggest the 35L. I found the 50 f/1.4 to have inconsistent focus larger than f/2.8, but maybe that was just the copy I was using. The 35L focuses a lot more accurately and would give you a shallow DOF lens.

 

[echojs]

Thanks I'm considering splurging and getting the 100mm 2.8L* since this is one is supposed to be really sharp and I really want a good macro. The 50mm I rented was really sharp, nice bokeh, but don't think it is wide enough to cover potential wide/low light combo needs. I'll have to see if I can do 35 and to 100.... and then others later. It seems a lot of pros I've heard/read about have the 24-70. We'll have to see about that later. I know zooms are valuable in certain situations. I also am concerned about my 70-200 being f/4, but at least I have the ISO capabilities of the 5D3 for now to hopefully make it work until I can get a faster telephoto.

*I'm not sure if the 100mm 2.8L is worth the extra over the non-L version, but Digital Picture's ISO 12233 Chart shows the L sharper wide open, which would make me lean that direction.

I'd suggest reserving the 100mm range for the macro and selling the ef-s 60mm. I've never used the 100mm f/2, but the macro versions are very sharp already. I don't think you'd lose much by getting a macro (just 1 stop), but you'd gain the flexiblity of having a decent portrait length at f/2.8 with shooting details with one lens.

So you're saying the 100mm is adequate for a portrait and I don't necessarily need an 85mm right now? If the non-L is just about as good, then I could possibly get the 85 1.8 too..... ;D

 

[Random Orbits]

So you're saying the 100mm is adequate for a portrait and I don't necessarily need an 85mm right now? If the non-L is just about as good, then I could possibly get the 85 1.8 too..... ;D

Yes. There isn't much of a difference between 85 and 100mm in angle of view and the difference between 1.8 and 2.8 is sizeable but not tremendously large. If you do get a 100mm macro, then I'd suggest a f/1.2 or f/1.4 (Sigma, although I've never tried it) 85mm and not the f/1.8 for a larger difference in minimum DOF.

It's a tough call between the two Canon 100mm macros. I've never used the non-L version, but it is supposed to be a really good value. The L's advantage is IS, which can help when handshooting at smaller apertures (i.e. f/11). If you anticipate serious macro work with tripods, then IS has less value. If you plan shooting handheld, then the IS may be worth it. Try them both either by renting or by testing them out at a camera store.

It might also be worth buying refurbished copies from the Canon store or used. Prices are high right now, so it might be also worth waiting for the rebates to come around again.

 

[echojs]

Thanks R.O. for your suggestions.