Searching for new lens

[calexp]

Hi,
I was looking to get a new lens and i got stuck!
I'm searching for a good portrait and telephoto lens and i'm between the 50-200 f2.8-3.5 and the two $$$ pricey 35-100 f2 and 90-250 f2.8. I already have the 14-54 f2.8-3.5.
As far i know the 35-100 f2 is the best as a portrait lens but doesn't have the reach of the 50-200, and the 90-250 is closer to the 50-200 at focal length.
I haven't see any reviews for the two (35-100 & 90-250) but for the 50-200 the are.
So, do i go spend $1k for the 50-200, or $2k+$5k (total $7k ) for the other two?
Ok, i know the $ difference is too much but are they worth it?
Are there any other options (eg. Sigma) that are almost equal to what i'm looking for?
I don't care about the weight or the size of the lens, i can handle it .

[Greg McCary]

You don't mention the 12-60mm. I just got one and it really fouses fast and works well in low light, as in a dark church for weddings. I have read that there could be focusing issues with the 35-100mm in low light, mostly when mounted to the E3. I am not sure if the problem has been corrected with firmware or not. But I have no personal experiance with the lens. But if you are wanting low light shots I think the 12-60mm could be a good choice.
I have read nothing but good about the 50-200mm but I always considered it a lens for sports.

[calexp]

The 12-60 is out of my bag since i have the 14-54 and i'm very happy with it. Also with $200 more i get the 50-200 instead of the 12-60.
The focus issue you are talking was for the 14-35 f2, not for the 35-100 f2. And as far i know they haven't fix it yet (no firmware update for the 14-35).
Unfortunately due to a car crash last night (it will cost me about $9k & a month without car), i will back away for a while from these pricey lenses. I might go for the 50-200 in 1-2 months.

[rubeel]

the 35-100 is a great portrait lens, it is very heavy but an excellent lens.

[Sushigaijin]

In your case, I suggest a used 50-200 (old version). You don't need SWD for portraits, and you don't need to drop the extra money on the large and expensive f/2 lenses. Unless you have money to burn, in which case I've heard the 35-100 is very nice.

[rubeel]

i burned money for the 35-100 and i am outta door right now in the snow to play with it, it is a great lens

[calexp]

Ok, i burned alot to fix my car, $8,400 to be exact, and i will have it in a couple of weeks.
So next month probably i will go for the 50-200 since my budget is a little low right now (say by minus $8,400 )
So for the time being the 35-100 & 90-250 are not an option, at least for this year .

[Atomic2]

Hmm... you just want a lens for portraits? Dont forget that on the Olympus system, the crop factor of 2 makes a good portrait focal length at about 50-100mm. You seem to want huge telephotos and at those focal lengths, you would need to be a considerable distance back to take a good portrait.

Personally I love the portraits I get from my ZENIT 58mm F2 lens [legacy M42 mount]

I've also gotten awesome portraits from the 40-150mm F3.5-4.5

Both very cheap solutions to your problem. In fact, I hope I am not insulting you when I say this, I think your problem is more likely a ton of money burning a hole in your pocket. Try the cheap solutions first if you have money to burn. The law of diminishing returns is very apparent in digital photography... the higher end glass is very good, but the effect on your images just wont be the world of difference that the price tag suggests. Just my 2c

[calexp]

Well, i know that the price tags are a little high, but i prefer a zoom over a prime for one reason. That some shots i get, i'm in a place where i can't go closer to the subject or further away from it (not in studio, so....). Think it as reportage shots (most of them are!). So a telephoto lens is needed in some occasions.
Primes tend to be faster (brighter) and cheaper, while faster (brighter) zooms tend to go sky high on their price.
I used the 40-150 for a while but for handheld and low light it's not that good, for daytime photos is ok though.
As for what i'm getting.... next month the 50-200, to complete the "kit" with the 14-54.
Both are fast enough (f2.8-3.5). I will try and see if i might need a faster lens in the future.