Many like the 85mm f1.8, but I'm a fan of the 100mm f2, both are sharp, and
have good OOF characteristics.  Another option, but one with which I'm not
personally familiar, is the 85mm f1.2, but that might push out of your
budget ($1450US).  As far as a "normal" lens, the 50mm f1.8 is cheap, and
good, but cheap in all senses of the word, all plastic construction, no USM,
even a plastic lens mount.  But under $75US.  Then there's the 50mm f1.4,
better all around, but roughly 4x as expensive.  Both are faster than
Canon's 35mm f2, but there is the 35mm f1.4L but it's over $1000US.

Hi Martin

It's a personal choice thing, but I think you are planning a budget that
has too much camera and not enough lens. BTW, the indicated RRP of the
5D is, IIRC, about £2,600, and I would be pleasantly surprised if the
street price reaches £2,000 any time soon. FWIW, here are my own
personal choices, though they would break your budget.

35mm f/1.4L USM - a superb lens, and the one I would choose for any
hand-held interior use - I have used it with success in the British
Museum and similar places enlightened enough to allow photography.

50mm f/1.4 USM - what can I say that has not been said many times by
others? I bought this in preference to the f/1.8 as I have an aversion
to cheaply constructed lenses; having said this, I bought an f/1.8 for
my daughter and, in normal use, it is hard to tell the difference in the
results. Unusually, I bought both second hand (on e-bay) but both are
indistinguishable from new.

85mm f/1.8 USM - a fine portrait lens. I don't use it a lot, as I don't
do much portrait work, but if I did it would be a favourite. For what I
do most of, the next lens is more useful.

100mm f/2.8 macro. Superb. I have the pre-USM version, but I have not
heard much to suggest the old lens is noticeably inferior. For macro
work, of course, the AF is fairly useless anyway.

And, saving the best for last - 24mm f/3.5L TS-E. Could be my desert
island lens, except that a desert island is probably the kind of place
where it would be least useful. One of my main interests is taking
pictures of buildings, exteriors and interiors, and at this it excels.
With practice, it can be used hand held in good light. For church
interiors, I quite often use it on the floor, where the upward shift
conveniently removes all or most of the floor from the image. When I
bought it, my main camera was an EOS 1n, on which it is near-perfect. It
works well on my 10D, though the restricted FoV is less than ideal, so I
look forward to being able to use it on a full frame digital.

I also have a 45mm f/2.8 TS-E. This gets a lot less use; it would be
excellent for studio still-life work, but I don't at present do a lot of
this.

If I had to choose, say, 2 of these, then for what I do it would be the
24 TS-E and the 100mm macro. Your needs may, of course, be different
from mine.

If you would like to see some sample images from any of these lenses,
e-mail me at: david at dlittlewood dot co dot uk

David