Which Lens Package would you prefer?

Hi Community,




I'm thinking of optimizing my Lens Option and Need yor help with this.



I'm shooting with a 7D As a hobby (Not professionally): Portraits, Sports, Family Events and when travelling (twice a Year) landscapes and Wildlife



I happy to Call the followings lenses my own:

10-22(EF-S)

24-105L

70-200 2.8L IS II

85 1.8

100 2.8L IS Marco




The 100-400 is an Option to enhance my Wildlife Fotography but I wanz to wait for Next Year with that.



FF is an Option in the near Future (that is Why the 24-105 and Not a 15-85) but I want to first explore the full possibilities of the 7D.



I guess the setup is well balanced and a good setup. What is kicking my mind is still to Optimize that Set (it is a Never Endung Story right?).
So what is your opinion on switching to the following Set?



10-22(EF-S)

24-105L

70-200 4L IS

85 1.2L

100 2.8L IS Marco

135 2L




The reason Why thinking about that setup:
70-200 4 is Not As Heavy As the 2.8 so Beter for travelling.
The missing 2.8 Aperture is compensated for Portraits by the 85 L and the 135 L for Sports. Beside the weight each Lens will outperform the 70-200 2.8 on their Main application areas.



Disadvantages I See:
Do I really Travel with lese Weight? If I have to take the 70-200 + 85 or/and 135 it won't help. As Sion As I got the 100-400 I might leave the 70-200 at Home anyway.



Any thoughts?



Christian

Christian


If you want my thoughts...I would never get rid of the 70-200 2.8 II if I had it. I personally think you wold be giving up way more than you'd be gaining.


I am envious of your current setup, if you want to try something different, I'll send you my setup and you can send me yours. [:O]


BTW, welcome to forums.


Braden

You have a great set-up...for a 7d and FF already. I have the 70-200 2.8ll, and it outperforms all other lenses, except perhaps the 85 1.2L. It is sharper wide open than the 135L, and the bokeh is almost as good! being that your not a pro, this shouldn

If you don

Welcome Christian,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TucsonTRD

If you want my thoughts...I would never get rid of the 70-200 2.8 II if I had it.

---

Second! In fact, I am upgrading my 2.8 I to a 2.8II.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bryan Carnathan's review

If you want the best 70-200 L lens available - and arguably the best Canon zoom lens ever made (as of this review date) -
the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM Lens is definitely the lens to get.

---

Definitely a valued opinion I go by.


I personally do not / will not fly, so travel is not an issue for me. when we go on vacation, all my gear neatly fits in a Pelican case. For me also, the weight is not an issue. Perhaps I am just used to it. I am pleased with my version I, it is hard to believe it can get better, but apparently it does.[:)]


As to your question, are you looking to go exclusively FF, or add say a 5D II to your 7D? Like wickerprints, I do not see a need for the 100 2.8 if you are not doing macro. I think the 17-55 is the best 1.6 crop general purpose lens, if you keep the 7D. I like the 24-70 2.8 on my 5D II. I would strongly recommend you consider it on a FF body. I shoot a lot of my sports and family events in low lighting situations without a flash, especially sports, so I tend to favor the 2.8's. I get good results from them. I also favor the zooms more than some, but a lot of that comes down to what you are doing. I find a quality 2.8 zoom the most practical one lens solution for my daughter's basketball games.


You are looking at general recommendations for a wide range of situations -- Portraits, Sports, Family Events -- but we are all going to give advise based on what we are doing. As such, we will advise you based on our biases. As greggf pointed out, you really currently have a great setup. It would be easier to get more focused advise if you narrowed your request to an area you feel you need something different, like say the 100-400 for wildlife.


Good luck,


Chris


Edited for grammar, sorry

Thank you all for the very specific and valuable comments. Especially the comments of wickerprints and and Chris White are going in the direction I am heading for.


Chris: you are right, a 5D would be an add on to the 7D. So yes, I still could use a EF-S lens. Of course I rather have one set of lenses than for each focal length an EF-S and EF option.


You are also right. Quite a wide range of situations I was referring to. Let me try to narrow down the situations which I would love to improve.


1. “Natural” inside and outside Portrait shooting. I look for a superior background blur and highest quality pictures.


2. Improvement of shooting of family events in situation where a flash would destroy the light (e.g. going on a Christmas market)


3. Improve my wildlife shooting (South Africa trip next year). More focal length while keeping up high quality.


What I learned from the comments is clearly: keep the 70-200 2.8 II despite of the weight. Check.


Thinking about the 100-400 was mainly because I’m not willing to sacrifice significant IQ or AF performance on the higher focal length. I read the previews on the Extender III which sound really promising. I guess I’ll wait until Bryan has done a first review before deciding (70-200 + Extender, 300 prime + Extender, 100-400)


85L greggf and Wickerprints: What is your opinion: Is there a significant improvement of the background blur shooting portraits with the 85L instead of the 70-200? Worth the additional (significant) invest?


The 17-55 is another topic.


The candidates in my opinion are:


17-55 2.8 IS for Crop


24-70 28 Non-IS for FF


24-105 4 IS for FF


I’m wondering why most of the comments are in favor of the 24-70 instead of the 24-105. In my opinion the 3-stop IS is making up for the missing 2.8 aperture. Of course I would love to have the 2.8 for action stopping but that is the compromise I am willing to take for the additional versatility. As Bryan said: “If I had only one lens, this would be the one.”


Why is the 24-70 instead of the 24-105 on your recommendation list Chris and wickerprints?


17-55 alone is a great lens due to the 2.8 and the IS. May be I would get used to the reduced focal length (55-105, gaining the 17-24) but the 17-55 is not FF compatible.


Taking this lens into consideration makes going FF more difficult. Of course I could get the 17-55 and keep the 24-105. I only would go for two lenses for the general purpose area if it really adds significant benefits to my set and I am not sure if this is the case.


And than again having those two lenses and moving to FF: Keep the 24-105 or exchange it by the 24-70?


What definitely is no choice: Having all three of them ;-)


I can’t wait to read your comments.


Christian

Hi Chris..


You made the first step by wanting to keep the 70-200 2.8ll...!! It does take phenomenal photos, is tack sharp wide open, and the versatility is awesome, but yeah, it does weigh a considerable amount. After seeing the pictures taken with it, you'll get used to the weight!!


As far as the 85L goes...yes, it has the ability to really blur the background like no other. But, there are other alternatives, too. I did a really small review of the Sigma 85 1.4 on the forum here(community.the-digital-picture.com/.../4964.aspx), with pictures from my 1D4 and Sigma 85 1.4. I t does a very good job, for half the price. Another member has already bought one, so look for her posts, too. check it out...





Gregg

Hi Christian, and welcome to the TD forums!


I'll echo the comments that you've got a nice kit! Like you I shoot a wide variety of subjects, ranging from portraits to architecture to birds - and having a large collection of lenses does help with that varied interest...
<div>
<div>


Personally, I was in a similar situation to you a while back, even to the point of having much of the same gear (7D, 10-22mm, 24-105mm, 100mm L Macro, 70-200mm II; but also some of the lenses on your 'wish list' - the 85L and 100-400mm, and the 17-55mm as well).


I think you're right about the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II - definitely keep it. Honestly, I liked it but didn't love it on my 7D - quality is excellent, but the focal length just wasn't especially useful for me. For you at this point, it's your longest lens, and that's an important part of any kit where wildlife is involved. But since I had the 100-400mm, I found the 70-200mm too short for wildlife, and too long for use indoors. It was great as an outdoor event lens on the 7D. However, for me the 70-200mm II came into its own on the 5DII - there, it's a great focal length for both indoor and outdoor portraits.


The 100-400mm is excellent for wildlife shooting, especially on the 7D. I'd really recommend against a 2x teleconverter. I have to disagree with Gregg's statement, "You can couple the 70-200 2.8ll to the 2x extender, and perform just as good as the 100-400L." Even with the 1.4x Extender II plus the 70-200mm II, the optical performance is not as good as the 100-400mm (but that combo on the 7D is weather-sealed, so I do use it in the rain). A 2x extender will reduce image quality substantially more than a 1.4x extender, and I really can't imagine even the MkIII version of the 2x extender plus the 70-200mm II coming even close to the IQ of the 100-400mm. The extenders are compatible with the 70-200mm zooms, but really they are optimized for the supertelephoto prime lenses.
</div>
<div>


Since you're planning on adding the FF body (vs. replacing), I think you're pretty well positioned for lenses. For wide landscapes, consider replacing your 10-22mm with a 17-40mm f/4L or 16-35mm f/2.8L II (I opted for the latter). The 135mm f/2L is an excellent lens, and one that will probably find its way into my kit soon. But f/2 is not much faster than f/2.8, and for portrait use you can actually get more OOF blur at 200/2.8 than 135/2 - meaning I'd try the 70-200mm II for portraits before opting for the 135mm f/2L. On the other hand, if you shoot a lot of indoor sports, that extra stop can make a big difference for shutter speed.
</div>


Your statement about having 'just one set of lenses' rather than duplicating EF and EF-S focal ranges makes a lot of sense. However, one consideration is whether or not you'll bring both bodies on a typical outing. For me, I generally do not carry both. Before heading out, I generally know what type of shooting I am planning - if it's portraits/landscapes/architecture, I take the 5DII and lenses up to the 70-200mm II. If I'm going out to shoot wildlife, I take the 7D and the 100-400mm, and I also bring the 17-55mm for opportunistic use if needed.


Now down to some of the specifics you mentioned:


85L vs. 70-200mm II. Both are excellent lenses! The 70-200mm II is certainly a versatile lens, and allows a lot of flexibility for portraits and events. You can certainly get good OOF blur for portraits, but it really helps to pay attention or have some control over your background - at f/2.8, having some physical separation between subject and background is better. The 85L is wonderful for portraits, both on the 7D (best for head shots) and on the 5DII. With the 85L on FF, you can effectively blur out even close and busy backgrounds, although you do need to take care that your DoF is not too thin for your subject. What do you think of the 85mm f/1.8 on your 7D? That lens used on a FF body will have thinner DoF (for the same framing), equivalent to how 135mm f/2.8 looks on your 7D. But I must say that the creamy bokeh and sheer quantity of OOF blur with the 85L is worth every penny, to me...


General purpose zooms. You've named three of the main contenders - 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, 24-70mm f/2.8L, and 24-105mm f/4L (and left off the 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS that you mentioned earlier). IMO, the 17-55mm is the best general purpose zoom lens for a 1.6x body. The 15-85mm is just to slow. Originally, I started with the 17-55mm, then later added the 24-105mm mainly for shooting with the 7D in inclement weather. On FF, I'm quite happy with my 24-105mm. I see the appeal of the 24-70mm f/2.8, but for non-moving subjects in dim light, the f/4 lens with IS is better than the f/2.8 lens without IS. For moving subjects in dim light, even f/2.8 is living on the edge and will require high ISO settings (ISO 3200 on the 5DII is much cleaner than on the 7D, but still more noise than I like in my shots). So, I think for true low-light ambient shooting, a fast prime is the way to go (something like the 35L is ideal in that regard - wide aperture, short focal length for easy handholding. For other 'general purpose' uses, the 24-105mm on FF is excellent (although if a 24-70mm f/2.8 with IS comes along, I'd take that over the 24-105mm).


The problem with a 24-xx lens on a 7D is that 24mm is often not wide enough (technically, 38mm FF-equivalent is at the bottom of the 'normal' range, not even wide angle). The significant benefit that the 17-55mm adds is the 17-24mm range on the 7D; else, IQ is similar with a 24-xx L zoom. But, 24mm on FF is wider than 17mm on the 7D - so, the only time you'd need that extra width is if you've only got the 7D with you. If you think that will frequently be the case, you can also hang onto the 10-22mm to cover that end. Or, if you get a UWA zoom for FF (17-40mm, 16-35mm), you'd have the wide end (but not ultrawide) covered for the 7D. Going out with only one body or the other is the main reason I can see for having two general purpose zooms. Personally, after getting the 5DII almost all of my 'general purpose' shooting is with the FF body - if I hadn't already had the 17-55mm, I wouldn't have bought it after getting the 5DII.


Good luck with your decisions!


--John
</div>

It sounds to me like you are placing a priority on low-light shooting conditions, as well as situations requiring long focal length. I honestly haven

Great posts, everyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wickerprints

"full frame" (ugh I hate that term)

---

Why is that?

Hi Christian,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwissChris

1. &ldquo;Natural&rdquo; inside and outside Portrait shooting. I look for a superior background blur and highest quality pictures.


2. Improvement of shooting of family events in situation where a flash would destroy the light (e.g. going on a Christmas market)

---

For 1 and 2, you definitely want f/2.8 or a faster prime. I have the EF-S 17-55 for my 50D because it was my first DSLR and I needed a wider aperture and I found the kit lens (EF 28-135) did not allow me to get my whole subject in the frame. I love the 17-55. Having said that, like neuro, now that I have a 5D II I tend to use it for a lot of the indoor family shots; and it pairs very well for those with the EF 24-70. They are both f/2.8 which I shoot more than not. In addition, it gives me that creamy background blur you are looking for, which helps draw you to the subject.<span style="color: #ff0000;"]<span style="color: #000000;"]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwissChris

Why is the 24-70 instead of the 24-105 on your recommendation list Chris and wickerprints?

---

<span style="color: #ff0000;"]<span style="color: #000000;"]I think you will find that most of us have the 24-70 instead of the 24-105 IS for the f2.8. I am fairly certain that were it available with IS, many of us -- such as me -- would have that version. Since Canon has ignored the pleas for a EF 24-70 IS for years, we use the non-IS version that is available. In the end it comes down to the simple fact for me that it lets twice the light in to the sensor as the 24-105 f/4.


Having a case of <span style="color: #ff0000;"]L <span style="color: #000000;"]disease, I also have the 24-105, which works very well for my daughter's outdoor soccer games.


<span style="color: #ff0000;"]<span style="color: #000000;"]I recently shot pictures of a variety/talent show at a church audoritum using only the poor stage lighting and my 5D II with my EF 24-70 f/2.8 and my EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS USM I and it came very nicely. I do not have one to insert now as I am at work, but if you want I could add one or two when I get home.


<span style="color: #ff0000;"]<span style="color: #000000;"]Chris



<span style="color: #ff0000;"]<span style="color: #000000;"]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris White

They are both f/2.8 which I shoot more than not. In addition, it gives me that creamy background blur you are looking for, which helps draw you to the subject.

---

Just keep in mind that there are two aspects to 'creamy background blur' - quantity of OOF blur (i.e. thin DoF) and quality of OOF blur (aka bokeh). Both lenses produce a nice, smooth bokeh. As for quantity, it depends on how tightly you frame - DoF is determined by subject distance, aperture, and focal length. For a given subject distance (e.g. 3 m), 105mm at f/4 results in a thinner DoF (~35%) and thus more OOF blur than 70mm f/2.8. Of course, the framing is tighter, too. But my point is that you can get good OOF blur with either 24-xx zoom (although nowhere near what you'll get with the 85L).

Because there

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris White

They are both f/2.8 which I shoot more than not. In addition, it gives me that creamy background blur you are looking for, which helps draw you to the subject.

---

Just keep in mind that there are two aspects to 'creamy background blur' - quantity of OOF blur (i.e. thin DoF) and quality of OOF blur (aka bokeh). Both lenses produce a nice, smooth bokeh. As for quantity, it depends on how tightly you frame - DoF is determined by subject distance, aperture, and focal length. For a given subject distance (e.g. 3 m), 105mm at f/4 results in a thinner DoF (~35%) and thus more OOF blur than 70mm f/2.8. Of course, the framing is tighter, too. But my point is that you can get good OOF blur with either 24-xx zoom (although nowhere near what you'll get with the 85L).
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

Good explanation Neuro


Mark

I&rsquo;m really impressed. I really appreciate all your time you spend on your answers. I guess I finally found the right community (I posted on some local (swiss) websites but the answers were not satisfactory at all).


John great insights which will help me a lot. It really seems your situation is/was really quite similar.


I have the same feelings about the 70-200 regarding the focal length. While it is a great lens I&rsquo;m expecting to use it more often on a FF Body. On my Crop I&rsquo;m using it mainly for outside events with enough distance between you and what you are going to shoot.


The 16-35 is already on my mind and will be definitely on my shopping list as soon as I go for a FF Body.


And I guess I&rsquo;ll do it just like you: I&rsquo;ll pick one Body dependent on what type of shooting I am heading for. And I guess for the ultra wide situations the full frame body will go along. So that would be a logical step to take.


Thank you also for your view on the Extenders. I probably will wait anyway for the III version review as there are also rumors around regarding a new 100-400 version. If the reviews of the extenders don&rsquo;t convince me and no new 100-400 version is announced I just go for the current model. It seems to do his job (wildlife). A bit disappointing for me is that the lens isn&rsquo;t weather sealed. Especially if you go out on safari there is a fair chance that you get unexpectedly caught by rain.


I had a look at your profile, your gear and some of your pictures posted on flickr especially those shots with the 85L. With your very cute daughter (I guess?) you got the perfect model. Congratulation ?


The creamy blur of the 85L is really sweet! That is exactly why this lens is kicking my mind. I guess there is no way around it&hellip; even though it is may a case of <span style="color: #ff0000;"]L disease ;-)


Leaves just the general purpose lens decision open.


Thank you wickerprints for the great summary of the advantages of aperture vs. IS.


Due to the fact that I own already the 24-105L I will use that. My feeling tends to agree to John (again). For real low light you are going to need a fast prime anyway.


It would be great to see your pictures of the church Chris. If you have the time to upload them I would appreciate it.


I guess the rational at the end dictates that the 24-105 will do fine for another year or two until deciding to go FF. On the FF we will see. Maybe the admired 24-70 2.8 IS is available. If I not a 35L enhance my low light capabilities.


The 17-55 would be a good option but I guess I won&rsquo;t go for it with respect to the upcoming FF upgrade.


It comes down to the following setup to go for:


10-22(EF-S) move to for FF 16-35L


24-105L keep unless a 24-70 2.8L IS is available


35 L (maybe at a later stage to enhance low light capabilities)


70-200 2.8L IS II keep


85 1.8 move to 85 L


100 2.8L IS Marco keep


Evaluate either 100-400 or Extender 1.4/2.0 III + 70-200 2.8


Best of breed or have I missed an argument?


@ John: May I get in touch with you? As you have nearly the same setup it would be great to get some advice on you Accessories (e.g. bags).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwissChris

Evaluate either 100-400 or Extender 1.4/2.0 III + 70-200 2.8

---

I wouldn't be happy with the 70-200 2.8L with the 2x extender, especially on a zoom lens. IMO it degrades the image to much.


But have you concidered this. The 70-200 is going to out perform the 100-400L on the short end. So why not go with a prime. The 300mm F4L IS instead of the 100-400L.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwissChris

I had a look at your profile, your gear and some of your pictures posted on flickr especially those shots with the 85L. With your very cute daughter (I guess?) you got the perfect model

---

Thanks! [:$]Yes, that's my daughter - she'll be 3 in January.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwissChris

May I get in touch with you?

---

Certainly! The forums have a 'Conversation' feature (aka private messaging) - if you click my profile link, you should see a Start a Conversation link in the upper right corner. If it's not there for some reason, let me know here.


--John

@John: Great. I saw the private Message Option already but wanted to ask first. I'll contact you (probably tomorrow)


@HDNitehawk Right the 300 4L is an Option worth to consider. My thoughts Why I ruled it out for my purposes (Wildlife):


Less versatility which I would miss on a photo safari. Those wild animals move quite fast in and out ouf range.


Second Point according Bryan's Review the 300 is slightly better on 300 but gets on the lower end at 420 (1.4 Extender) vs. The 100-400.


So trading versatility for slightly better Performance at 300 but less perfomance at 420 is for my puposes Nothing to aim for.


If considering primes in my opinion it would Be necessary to get the 300 2.8 or Even the 400 2.8 to really make up for the lost versatility but those Lenses are Way off my budget.



But that is only Based on Reading Bryans Reviews. What is your Experience with those primes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwissChris

If considering primes in my opinion it would Be necessary to get the 300 2.8 or Even the 400 2.8 to really make up for the lost versatility but those Lenses are Way off my budget.


But that is only Based on Reading Bryans Reviews. What is your Experience with those primes?

---

First let me say, I like primes because of the quality of the pictures.


Iowned the 100-400L, in my opinion it is very weak on the 100mm end compared to other lens I had. I would take it off and shoot with my 100mm F2.8L IS macro rather than use it at the short end. The copy I had, performed best at around the 300mm range, and started to loose strength out to 400mm. Comparing the 300mm F4to the 100-400L the 300mm does out perform at 300mm, and does loose alittle at 400mm but I am not sure it would be enough to matter. The 400mm f5.6L would be a better choice if it had IS, no IS is why I would like the 300mm F4 better. I know when I went out with the plan on shooting wildlife with my 100-400mm it was almost always at 400mm (the zoom just didn't matter that much to me).


As for the 300 2.8L at this point in time it gets no better. With a 1.4 converter most people will noticelittle or nodegradation of image. The 400mm 2.8L I wouldn't concider for wildlife, it is heaver than the 500mm F4L which IMO the 500mm would be the way to go. You mentioned Safari, which in my part of the world most people would take that to mean trip to Africa. Taking any one of these three big tele's would be a job in itself. I thought about going to Africa last year, and decided to wait till maybe next. If I go the 500mm F4L will go to, and maybe buy the 70-200mm F2.8L II for the wife to take on the back up camera.

Oops clicked twice

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clemmb

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris White

They are both f/2.8 which I shoot more than not. In addition, it gives me that creamy background blur you are looking for, which helps draw you to the subject.

---

Just keep in mind that there are two aspects to 'creamy background blur' - quantity of OOF blur (i.e. thin DoF) and quality of OOF blur (aka bokeh). Both lenses produce a nice, smooth bokeh. As for quantity, it depends on how tightly you frame - DoF is determined by subject distance, aperture, and focal length. For a given subject distance (e.g. 3 m), 105mm at f/4 results in a thinner DoF (~35%) and thus more OOF blur than 70mm f/2.8. Of course, the framing is tighter, too. But my point is that you can get good OOF blur with either 24-xx zoom (although nowhere near what you'll get with the 85L).
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

Good explanation Neuro


Mark
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

Agreed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwissChris

Less versatility which I would miss on a photo safari. Those wild animals move quite fast in and out ouf range.
Second Point according Bryan's Review the 300 is slightly better on 300 but gets on the lower end at 420 (1.4 Extender) vs. The 100-400.
So trading versatility for slightly better Performance at 300 but less perfomance at 420 is for my puposes Nothing to aim for.

---

Those were pretty much my reasons. I started with the 300mm f/4L IS (and had the 1.4x II Extender), but 300mm wasn't long enough, and the I wasn't thrilled with the performance with the extender (it does better with the 70-200 II, but still not up to the 100-400mm). If there was a 400mm f/5.6L IS prime, I'd likely take that over the 100-400mm (and I'll probably eventually work my way up to getting the 500mm f/4L IS), but for now, wanting 400mm and IS, I'm pleased with the 100-400mm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

If there was a 400mm f/5.6L IS prime, I'd likely take that over the 100-400mm

---

There is a hole in Canon's marketing. A 400mm F5.6L IS prime would be a very popular lens.

I agree... I asked them about that, a long time ago.... They pointed me to the 100-400 zom or a 400 mm DO, both of which have IS.


Regarding the 85 f1.2L, I miss mine. It was big, clunky, focused slowly, and wouldn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

A 400mm F5.6L IS prime would be a very popular lens.

---

Well, I'd buy one at any rate, and so would Colin it seems, so that's at least two. [:P]


But in general, I think "today's consumer" (whoever the heck that is and however Canon's marketing department found him/her) wants zoom lenses. Heck, they even made their new fisheye a zoom lens! Still, Canon makes plenty of 'esoteric' lenses (superteles, TS-E, etc.) that aren't 'popular'. So despite the fact that I'd bet they've sold more EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS lenses than the sum total of every supertelehoto prime that's rolled off the line in their entire corporate history, we can certainly hope they see the light and update the 400mm f/5.6L!!

Update: I recieved today the 85L. What a beauty. Just did a few shot. Just great. I