STOP the madness!

[HDNitehawk]

Denise


Why the 85 mm?


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


For the low light?

[Jon Ruyle]

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.

[Kayaker72]

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

[Kayaker72]

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;"]

[ddt0725]

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

[neuroanatomist]

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.

[piiooo]

<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 []. 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

[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 used 5d II???? Hmmm, I'll have to think about that one awhile!

Denise

[Trowski]

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:

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. []


- Aaron

[clemmb]

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