Going FF - need to settle on a lens-logic!

[panopticon]

I owned the 24-70mm F/2.8L up until November of last year. I sold it right before the release of the II version. So right now I have nothing between 35mm and 70mm. I seldom used it. I am hoping the new II version will be as good as promised. If it is I may rethink what I carry as a walk around.

I am not sure what your budget is, but with a few of the lenses we have talked about, an extender and a 5D II you would be getting close to 4 grand. I know the old saying glass before body, but if I were starting over I wouldn't take the 5D III with the 24-105mm kit lens off the table. The 1D type autofocus could very well do more for your photography than having three primes on one of the other bodies.

Yes, you're right about the prices sneaking up on 5D III-levels, but I'm not really sold on the new 5D features and the added costs. Besides, there should be some decent chances of making a good second-hand purchase now that people are upgrading. With that said, I probably won't make the final decision before the more thorough reviews of all the new gear have landed and the second-hand market has stabilized its prices a bit. So I'll definitely keep an eye on it, while waiting for a good offer...



Edit: Another post snuck in just before me

There are two problems with the 135mm and extenders, you lose AF speed and image quality significantly with the extenders on the 135mm. You cut the AF by half with the 1.4x and twice with the 2x, most likely slower than any of the 70-200's. The IQ with extenders and 135mm noticebly worst with the 1.4x than the 70-200's and significantly worst with the 2x. Another thing is you aren't saving but a few ounces by going that route and would cost more than a 70-200mm f/2.8 IS and nearly as much as the II version. I would concur with HD and strongly recomend the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS (II if possible) over the 135mm and extenders. If you are really bent on primes the 24mm and 35mm and 50mm f/1.4 (for cost reasons) in combination with the 70-200mm is a excelent combination.

Later on add the 135mm f/2.0 and 14mm f/2.8 and you got a killer combo!

John.

I understand what you're saying, but the way I see it the extender is just an added bonus, that saves me from carrying around another dedicated tele-lens. I see your point with using the 70-200 f/2.8 IS as both a portrait and tele-lens, though. That would give me everything in one package, but the package would be a bit heavier. I'd save around half a kg by using the 135mm + 2x extender (lets just assume, I'll go with the heaviest/priciest extender for now), and around 750 dollars total. I could always cover up that white color of the lens, but it is still quite remarkable from its size alone - although a 135mm+extender would probably look just as remarkable anyway. But that would give me zoom and that's worth considering, though.

As to the autofocus/image-quality thing with the extenders: I did some reading on the autofocus, but my impression is that it isn't 'that bad'. I don't have any first-hand experience myself though, so that would be appreciated. As to the actual image-quality, I compared it on this same site's excellent comparison-tool, and didn't find the decrease in IQ that alarming (the tele-capability is still just an added bonus in my perspective). When stopped down to around f/8 it actually seemed just fine to me, but I'm aware that it puts a drag on the shutter-speed and/or ISO. It doesn't give me much bokeh to play with either, but I imagine using the tele-range mainly in the wilds for compressing the background. But first-hand knowledge with the extenders (especially series 3, since there seems to be a jump between v2 and v3) is definitely welcome.

- I'm off for now, but will check back tomorrow. Thanks for all the help thus far.