Canon EF 100mm F2.8 L IS USM Macro????

[timk]

G'day guys, I'm looking to buy a canon 60d in a month or two and i've been doing allot of research in to what lenses i should get.
I have been loving photography for about a year but have limited experience with SLR cameras.

i am in the process of deciding on the following:
-50mm 1.4
-100mm F2.8 L IS USM Macro
-some sort of cheaper zoom lens
-possibly the sigma 50 - 500

I know they're quite expensive lenses for a beginner but i think it may be best to get something that wont need to be replaced as i progress. Any advice/comments?

I'm just looking for some advice, mainly to do with the '100mm F2.8 L IS Macro', i am thinking i will use it for portraits, macro and for whatever else i can, it has great reviews, i just don't want to spend that much money on a lens and then find that i don't use it very often. I do plan on doing allot of macro shooting, am i better off buying the non IS version (also slightly worse in every aspect as far as i have read), and spending the saved money on a 50-200 or something like that?

Any advice on any or all of these issues will be greatly appreciated.

TimK
**Sorry if that was too long, i'm new to this forum stuff

[inkista]

Try reading this basic guide to lenses. It should give you a better idea of what types of lenses are out there and what they're good for.

A macro lens is great for macros and can do portraits, but for my personal tastes, macro lenses are too sharp/slow for portraits: every pore and every nose hair shows up and I prefer f/2 to f/2.8 for available light. Whether the 100L Macro is worth it or not depends a lot on how much macro you plan to shoot, and how much money you have to spend.

Going straight for the great lenses can be smart, if you know it's the lens you want and you aren't going to unhappy with it or not using it. The problem is that in order to know this, you have to have some experience with lenses, first. If you don't have that experience, you need to get it. OTOH, with L lenses, they tend to keep value, and if you decide to sell it, it won't be at much of a loss.

With a lens as expensive as the 100L Macro, I'd recommend renting it for a short period first so you can try it out first to see if it fits you and what you shoot. It may be a great fit. Everybody's needs are different, so you have to read reviews with that in mind. A lot of reviews are written by pros who can write off lenses on their taxes and who need equipment that can stand up to heavy daily use. If you're a hobbyist shooter, your POV may be quite different.

[timk]

Renting is a good idea, thanks. Im now thinking maybe to get a cheaper macro lens and spend a bit more on the others. Has anyone got the 50mm 1.4? i'm not sure whether its worth the extra 300$ over the 1.8.
Any comments?

[atmenterprises]

I have the 50mm f/1.4. I passed over the f/1.8 version because of build quality and better bokeh. But I didn't pay $300 more for the 1.4, only a little less than $200. Check eBay for a good quality used version.