STOP the madness!

Ok, someone please tell me if I'm insane or if this makes any sense at all to do! Other than the miscellaneous items I already posted for sale (none of which have sold [:(]), I am thinking of doing the following ...

Maybe selling:
Canon 100-400mm (less than a yr. old)
Canon 70-200mm f/4 (only a couple months old)
Canon 1.4ex II (less than a yr. old)
Canon 85mm f/1.8 (less than 6 mths. old & one of my favorites)

and a BIG MAYBE ...sell my Canon 17-55mm f/2.8

AND maybe buying:

5D II
Canon's new 70-300mm
Sigma's new 85mm f/1.4

And probably would hang on to my 24-105mm, 35mm f/1.4 L, 50mm f/1.4.

Although, I would love to have the MP-E 65mm, I can't justify owning that one ...yet!

Does this make any sense at all to do or am I totally insane?

Denise

The 24-105 & 70-300 would be similar focal lengths to what you

I'm not sure I'd sell the 70-200mm f/4L and 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L in favor of the new 70-300mm f/4-5.6L. The image quality from the 70-200mm is amazing as it is, I don't think the 70-300mm could be anything but marginally better, and even then in real-world situations you probably wouldn't be able to tell. The constant aperture of the 70-200mm is a big plus, I didn't check but I'm betting the 70-300mm is only about f/5.0 at 200mm. Seeing that you have the 100-400mm, you might be disappointed with the reach on the 70-300mm.


What are your reasons for wanting to go full-frame? It seems like with your proposition you'd be loosing a lot of flexibility just for the 5DII. It also doesn't help that there are rebates on some of those lenses now, so you'll lose even more money on them.


What other lenses do you have right now? It's too bad the 17-55mm f/2.8 won't work on the 5DII, it'll make you want the 24-70mm f/2.8L.


Some food for thought on the Sigma 85mm f/1.4:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIPFX2L9Ve8

Easy. Just buy the new stuff, but don't sell your old stuff. [:)]

I do use (want) the reach the 100-400mm gives me and even wish I could afford more reach. I most always have it set at 400mm. The extra 100mm will be hard to part with. Even when I briefly owned the 300mm f/4 I usually used it with the 1.4ex II attached but sold that lens for for the 100-400mm. With the new 70-300mm, I am hoping I will get over losing that extra reach by enjoying better IQ. Actually, with the 70-300mm & Sigma 85mm, I am hoping to gain better IQ and faster AF(??)


Having the two larger zoom lenses to choose from, I always seem to choose to take the 100-400mm with me and the 70-200mm sits at home when I go out to the state parks on nature hikes ...the 70-300mm = one happy medium in weight and reach.


As far as the 5d II goes, mainly when I am on nature hikes, I am constantly changing lenses for when I'm shooting birds and other wildlife and then want to use a wide angle for beautiful landscape shots. I've paid my dues for a dirty sensor doing this too often in the past. Plus with the 7D where I live, shooting outside past 4 pm is near impossible for a large part of the year starting now. I am really pushing the ISO when I shoot after work and the noise would not be as bad with the 5D II. Plus the photos you guys are getting with the 5D II are amazing!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trowski

It seems like with your proposition you'd be loosing a lot of flexibility just for the 5DII. It also doesn't help that there are rebates on some of those lenses now, so you'll lose even more money on them.


What other lenses do you have right now? It's too bad the 17-55mm f/2.8 won't work on the 5DII, it'll make you want the 24-70mm f/2.8L.

---

I've thought about these exact problems & it has made me very hesitant of doing this right now! I already took a huge hit when I sold my 300mm. And yes, I have thought about my wanting the 24-70mm when all is said and doneand I am convinced there is no end to the madness!!! The only other lensI own that is not mentioned in my original post is the 100mm f/2.8 IS Macro lens and I'll be hanging on to that baby.

My head has spinned around this for awhile now & I'm hoping to get my mind made up before the new lenses hit the store shelves. Maybe I should at least wait until the rebates expire.

Denise

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle

Easy. Just buy the new stuff, but don't sell your old stuff. [img]/emoticons/emotion-1.gif[/img]



<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

---

Now you're talkin'!! Only bad part is my bank account is telling me something totally different!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trowski

It's too bad the 17-55mm f/2.8 won't work on the 5DII, it'll make you want the 24-70mm f/2.8L.

---

<div>


As Daniel Browning has pointed out, the 24-105mm f/4L IS on FF is better spec'd than the 17-55mm f/2.8 on 1.6x - the FF equivalent of the latter is 27-88mm f/4.5, so by comparison the 24-105mm is wider, longer, faster, and still has IS. True, faster shutter speeds are possible with f/2.8 (since the crop factor applies to DoF but not to exposure), however, the better ISO noise performance of FF compensates for that as well - higher ISO gives you a faster shutter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle

Easy. Just buy the new stuff, but don't sell your old stuff.

---

That's what I did... [:D] Well, mostly. I did sell the 10-22mm because the 5DII will be the camera for landscapes (I'll be ordering the 16-35mm next week, I think). I also sold the 70-300mm DO, partly because the novelty wore off, and partly because if I decide that focal range in a portable package is something I want in the future, I'd prefer the slight additional bulk but better IQ and weather sealing of the new 70-300mm L.
</div>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ddt0725

Does this make any sense at all to do or am I totally insane?

---

<div>


Well, Denise, I should be the last person to question anyone's gear choices! [:P]But I would suggest thinking carefully about what you like to shoot. The 5DII is not an action camera. AI Servo doesn't do a great job of keeping up with my daughter running towards me, much less trying to track a bird. That's why I didn't get the 5DII until I could do so without giving up the 7D. If you're going to do it, don't keep the 17-55mm unless you plan on getting another crop camera at some point soon (and if you're going to do that, why sell the 7D, which is the king of the crop cameras?!?)


I know it's hard, because with winter coming fast, birds and outdoor shooting outings will probably be fewer. But next spring, would you miss your 7D when the birds come back? Maybe you'd miss it at your feeders over winter?


Also, keep in mind that your plan assumes you can sell all of those items, and as Trowski points out there are rebates on the 100-400mm and the 17-55mm right now, which cuts the price for used copies.


If you plan to shoot mostly portraits, landscapes, macro, and the like from now on, your idea makes a fair bit of sense. But if you plan to keep shooting birds/wildlife, I think the strengths of the 7D for that use outweigh the downsides of 1.6x for the other uses, if birds/wildlife constitute a reasonable proportion of your shooting.


Either way, good luck with your decisions!


--John
</div>

Denise, Your not crazy at All----What are you asking for the 1.4 extender, I'll give you a hundred bucks for it right now: [:D]---KIdding aside. You have a very nice collection of lenses and you seem to like the wildlife and outdoor shots----why would you think about giving up your 100-400 unless it was for a 400 or 500 prime?


I guess, the best question is, what direction are you planning to go with your photography?


Bob

I would wait for some reviews on the 70-300


Personally the way I like to shoot, you would be double covered now with the 70-200 and 100-400. I would only sell if I traded up. And we do not know yet if the new 70-300 will be a upgrade in quality over those two. If it were me with what we know for sure on lens a 70-200 f/2.8 is would make more sense. Or next step up to primes.


That said, the new70-300 sure would be handy to carry around.


That might be a big consideration for you, it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

But next spring, would you miss your 7D when the birds come back?

---

I am still planning to hang onto the 7d and only sell the lenses listed above (100-400mm, 70-200mm, 85mm, 1.4ex II &amp; maybe the 17-55mm). Hanging onto the 7d, 24-105mm, 50mm, 35mm&amp; 100mm macro.

I love shooting outdoors ...landscapes, birds/wildlife, kids, dogs, flowers, butterflies and insects. Portraits ...hmmm, Ilove it but I need ALOT of work in that area!

Denise

Denise


Why the 85 mm?


The 100mm will do some really nice portraits and nice bokeh.


For the low light?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ddt0725

Now you're talkin'!! Only bad part is my bank account is telling me something totally different!

---

Ah, that. Well, perhaps you could get the new body before buying/selling new lenses. After playing with the 5DII a bit (with the lenses you have) you might change your mind about what you need, or (more likely) be able to buy/sell those lenses with more confidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle

Easy. Just buy the new stuff, but don't sell your old stuff. [img]/emoticons/emotion-1.gif[/img]

---

Oh....this forum is so dangerous.


Hi Denise...would you keep your 7D?


A few quick reactions, assuming you are keeping the 7D:

• 100-400L:I've seen a lot of great pictures from you with the 7D and the 100-400L taken at 400mm. Are you sureyou to give up that combination. Plus, the 100-400L IS II is rumored to be coming out in 2011 ([:P]). Ok...don't count on that. Do you think you'd be happy with 300 mm and the 7D? If you aren't going to keep the 7D, it seems like you would be giving up a lot of reach.
• 70-200 f/4 (IS??): I recall a few photos from you with this lens, soI am not sure you use it much.Do you?
• 17-55 f/2.8: Just a quick reaction here, but it seems that you'd be trading f2.8 on your 7D with this lens for better ISO performance with the 5D but f4 with the24-105.Of course, with your primes you'd get the extra light and better noise performance.
• 70-300L. I was tempted by this lens too. Smaller, lighter and better IS/IQ (likely) than the 100-400L. But in 6 months it may be cheaper and you'll have reviews to judge it by.

Playing with the math, you may still be kicking in ~$1,000-$1,500. At that point, if you don't use it much, I might be tempted start your transition in steps andsell the 70-200 f/4 and buy the 5DII and leave everything else the same....for now [:)]. But I am a boring engineer....[8-|]


Brant

Ok...I started my post, got distracted...posted it...and wow, about 5 new messages.....but the primary comment that now seems irrelevant is the third bullet about the 17-55 f2.8. I thought crop factors didn't impact aperture [8-)][*-)], but if they do....then this bullet is wrong and I might start considering a FF!!!<span style="background-color: #ffffff;"] <span style="font-size: xx-small;"](in about 2 yrs).......


<span style="background-color: #ffffff;"]<span style="font-size: xx-small;"]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayaker72

would you keep your 7D? <span style="color: #ff0000;"]Yes, I'd keep the 7D. I want to be able to take both on nature hikes for landscape shots &amp; wildlife.


A few quick reactions, assuming you are keeping the 7D:

• 100-400L:I've seen a lot of great pictures from you with the 7D and the 100-400L taken at 400mm. Are you sureyou to give up that combination. Plus, the 100-400L IS II is rumored to be coming out in 2011 ([img]/emoticons/emotion-4.gif[/img]). Ok...don't count on that. Do you think you'd be happy with 300 mm and the 7D? <span style="color: #ff0000;"]Not so sure, when I had the 300mm f/4, I used the extender also most of the time. If you aren't going to keep the 7D, it seems like you would be giving up a lot of reach.
• 70-200 f/4 (IS??): I recall a few photos from you with this lens, soI am not sure you use it much.Do you? <span style="color: #ff0000;"]Hardly at all! Maybe a handful of times since I bought it.
• 17-55 f/2.8: Just a quick reaction here, but it seems that you'd be trading f2.8 on your 7D with this lens for better ISO performance with the 5D but f4 with the24-105.Of course, with your primes you'd get the extra light and better noise performance. <span style="color: #ff0000;"]I know but all in all, I really love everything about the 24-105mm, the zoom range for in the backyard and the IQ.
• 70-300L. I was tempted by this lens too. Smaller, lighter and better IS/IQ (likely) than the 100-400L. But in 6 months it may be cheaper and you'll have reviews to judge it by. <span style="color: #ff0000;"]I am thinking to wait til spring at least on this one.

Playing with the math, you may still be kicking in ~$1,000-$1,500. At that point, if you don't use it much, I might be tempted start your transition in steps andsell the 70-200 f/4 and buy the 5DII and leave everything else the same....for now [img]/emoticons/emotion-1.gif[/img]. But I am a boring engineer....[img]/emoticons/emotion-15.gif[/img] <span style="color: #ff0000;"]I work with "boring" engineers all day long and am intrigued by their logical way of thinking!

---

<span style="color: #000000;"]To prioritize things ...I really think the Sigma 85mm will be better (IQ &amp; AF)than what I have (am I correct with this?) and I love that lensand it's cheaper than the 85L I really want. So, the Sigma I think is at the top of my list so that makes selling the 85mm at the top of the sell list. Costing me an additional $600 approx.

I never use the 70-200mm so that is next to sell and since I then have no reason for the 1.4 II that goes out with it along &amp;sell the 17-55mmto get the 5d II with no extra $ needed (hmmm...unless I keep the 17-55mm &amp; buy a used 5D II).

I keep the 100-400mm until reviews come in &amp; price goes downfor the 70-300mm and rebates go bye-bye.

Denise

Sorry Denise, I misread your post regarding the 7D. Still, I would think twice about giving up that extra 100mm from the 100-400mm to the 70-300mm. Besides, the cost of the two lenses new is about the same, so you'd lose $ and focal length.


Brant, yes, the crop factor really does affect aperture, sort of. It affects the depth of field, such that you have an apparent aperture of 1.6x narrower on the smaller sensor. In reality, it's still field of view - to get the same framing for a shot with a crop sensor compared to FF, you need to back up with the crop body, and that extra distance translates to deeper DoF.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ddt0725

<span style="COLOR: #ff0000"]Yes, I'd keep the 7D. I want to be able to take both on nature hikes for landscape shots &amp; wildlife.

---

Great idea, IMHO. This is exactly what I do [:D]. When I hike I take my 100-400 or 180macro on my 7D and 24-105 or 17-40 on my 5DII. These 2 bodies and 4 lenses one can effectively cover for me a great range of outdoor objects. The only disadvantage is the total weight when I decide to take all of the above with me [:O]


Based on what you say, I agree that the 70-200 should go. If you are buing the Sigma 85mm, the 85 1.8 should go as well. As far as the 17-55 2.8, I amtoo sentimental about it, so I cannot reliably comment on it... I would definitely hold on tothe 100-400L, or consider swaping it for a 400 5.6L.I really thinkyou will miss this focal length.


Good luck


Pete

Thanks, everyone! Yep, I needed to have some sense knocked into me! I will hang onto the 100-400mm. It has been my daily traveling companion for too long for us to part ways now ...I would definitely miss it!


Out with the old 85mm and $600 ...in with the new Sigma 85mm.


Out with the 70-200mm f/4, 1.4ex II and 17-55mm ...in with a used 5d II???? Hmmm, I'll have to think about that one awhile!

Denise

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

As Daniel Browning has pointed out, the 24-105mm f/4L IS on FF is better spec'd than the 17-55mm f/2.8 on 1.6x - the FF equivalent of the latter is 27-88mm f/4.5, so by comparison the 24-105mm is wider, longer, faster, and still has IS. True, faster shutter speeds are possible with f/2.8 (since the crop factor applies to DoF but not to exposure), however, the better ISO noise performance of FF compensates for that as well - higher ISO gives you a faster shutter.

---

Very good points, I didn't really think about the improved ISO performance and apparent reduced DoF on the 5DII vs. 7D making up for the smaller aperture of the 24-105mm f/4L. I own both lenses, but actually often find the 24-70mm f/2.8L on my 7D when I'm using it for indoor sports. The 24-105mm f/4L now is usually on the 5DII for landscapes.


Denise, is your 70-200mm the IS version? If not, then I could definitely agree that the 70-300mm is an upgrade from the non-IS version.


From your comments earlier, it sounds like you might like this plan:

• Sell the 70-200mm since it seems you don't really use it
• Sell the 1.4x extender
• Sell the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS
• Buy the 5DII
• Keep the 100-400mm
• At some point buy a 17-40mm f/4L or 16-35mm f/2.8L [:)] for 5DII wide-angle goodness
• Do what you want with the 85mm situation, but the Canon 85mm f/1.8 is a very nice lens anyway

On your nature hikes, put the 24-105mm on the 5DII, and the 100-400mm (effective 160-640mm) on the 7D. There's some gap there, but you really don't need every focal length covered at all times anyway. This is similar to what I do, though instead of a 100-400mm I have a 70-200mm on the 7D, though I've given some serious thought to making it a 100-400mm or the new 70-300mm.


EDIT:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ddt0725

Thanks, everyone! Yep, I needed to have some sense knocked into me! I will hang onto the 100-400mm. It has been my daily traveling companion for too long for us to part ways now ...I would definitely miss it!


Out with the old 85mm and $600 ...in with the new Sigma 85mm.


Out with the 70-200mm f/4, 1.4ex II and 17-55mm ...in with a<span>used5d II???? Hmmm, I'll have to think about that one awhile!

---

Looks like I was typing while you posted this, and we were on a similar wavelength.


I'm one that has always preferred buying my equipment new. I like to know the history of what I'm using. If it interests you, keep in mind Canon has rebates for their Pixma Pro printers right now, making them free with the 5DII. I have the Pixma Pro 9000 II, and I love it. The prints it makes are incredible, I doubt I could do better going to a printer in town. They look awesome hanging on my walls. Should have you pick up a 85mm f/1.2L or TS-E 24mm f/3.5L with it too for the double rebate and have you send it to me, lol. [:D]


- Aaron

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ddt0725

Only bad part is my bank account is telling me something totally different!
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

I wish my bank account would stop telling me things lie this too.


Mark

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trowski

Denise, is your 70-200mm the IS version? If not, then I could definitely agree that the 70-300mm is an upgrade from the non-IS version.

---

Yes, my 70-200mm f/4 is the IS version.

It does look like we were on the same page so to speak at the same time! I think I'm going to stay away from the 70-300mm no matter how good it may turn out to be and keep the length I have with the 100-400mm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trowski

I'm one that has always preferred buying my equipment new. I like to know the history of what I'm using. If it interests you, keep in mind Canon has rebates for their Pixma Pro printers right now, making them free with the 5DII. I have the Pixma Pro 9000 II, and I love it. The prints it makes are incredible, I doubt I could do better going to a printer in town. They look awesome hanging on my walls.

---

So do I usually but I was thinking maybe refurbished rather than just used off ebay. Now that I look around online, a refurbished one is almost as expensive as new from some places! You are making that printer sound pretty good!


Wow, putting all this out in black and white sure does help a person think it thru especially when I'm bouncing the ideas off you guys!

Now I just need to wait for the Sigma 85mm to become available to possibly take my first step!

Thanks so much for the help!

Denise

I