What lens to buy?

[Sisster108]

Right now I have a Canon Rebel T3I, I have a 18-55 mm lens and a 75-300 mm lens. I have no clue what to get next. I want a new lens for Chirstmas and my mom was wondering what (I know it is very early). We are on a tight budget now. I was taking a peek at the Canon-EF-50mm-f-1.4-USM-Lens and the Canon-EF-100mm-f-2.8-USM-Macro-Lens. But I don't know. I do love taking portaits and macro. I don't want another zoom lens. What would be the best choice for me? If you have another lens suggestion please let me know I am open to anything.

Thank you again!!

Amanda 🙂

[ebiggs1]

As a side note, I had some four dozen lenses in my darkroom/storage room. I have weeded out and/or sold and replaced every one that wasn't f2.8 or faster. Save for a very small number that are just not feasible in a fast aperture version. I am retired now and I don't need $6000 dollar lenses anymore.

I also do not like variable apertures either so they is also gone. Where possible!

I did keep my EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 and I bought a Tamron 150-600 f5-6.3.<----Buying a Tamron was a big step for me.

Fast glass is where it's at, man! I even traded my 50mm f1.4 for a f1.2 and I love it. It is the best 50 I have ever used or even seen before.

[ScottyP]

One lens for those two purposes means some compromise is going to have to be made. The 60 macro gives true 1:1 macro ability, and the focal length is even more ideal for portraits on a crop than 50mm is (96mm equivalent vs. 80mm equivalent).

I do see the dilemma, as the widest apertures are fun, though f/ 2.8 is still considered pretty wide aperture, and is wider than either of her two existing lenses. The 60 is also cheaper, at about $470 vs. about $600 for a 100 macro plus $400 for a 50mm f/1.4.

I do not sense from the original post the OP is considering a move to a $1500 or $3,000 full frame body and all new full frame lenses, certainly not anytime soon, so the EF-s 60 will probably not need to be sold. Perhaps by purchasing a used copy she could be "depreciation-proof" and be able to shoot it for 5 years then sell it on for every penny she paid for it.

We don't know how serious she is about macro. If macro is not something she will do much, then perhaps a 50mm would be better, but it is hard to make that the answer to her lens question unless you are advising her to forget about the macro and just go with a fast normal prime instead. I agree a bright 50 is a fantastic lens upgrade from starter zooms.

Two separate lenses for about $1,000 would be ideal of course,(a 100 macro and a 50 f/1.4) except for the problem that it is twice as much money. The 60mm is a compromise that does both things pretty well at 1/2 the price of 2 separate lenses. But hey, everything in photography is a trade off, right down to the underlying physics. Wider aperture means more light but less DOF. Fast shutter means less light. Higher ISO means worse IQ. Greater DOF means faster shutter or higher ISO needed. Macro ability means f/2.8 aperture max. An f/1.4 aperture means no macro. EF-s lenses cost less but if you go exclusively full frame someday they are not usable.