Wallet full of $100 bills

[neuroanatomist]

Thanks, Bob!

If you do decide on the 70-200 II, one of the black rapid straps would solve your problems regarding keeping your hands available for "quick toddler grabs". I use mine with a 100-400 and it works great and is very comfortable.

I looked at the BlackRapid system a while back - it looks very appealing and comfortable, but I was reluctant to go that route because of the inconvenience of swapping out the FastenR-2 for the QR plates on the body or tripod foot. Some people apparently just connect the ConnectR-2 to the D-ring on the tripod QR plate, but i'm sure that thumbscrew is not designed to take the weight. I considered using the BR strap just for the white lens(es), attached to the tripod foot, but assuming I get the 695CX monopod, I'd get a 234 QR tilt-head for that, and be looking at a front-heavy monopod when attaching it to the camera, or still swapping plate forFastenR.


However, I think a BlackRapid strap will be a future purchase - according to BlackRapid's forum/blog, in addition to the new FasterR-3 that's now in production (one piece design instead of a D-ring), they're expecting to have FastenR's specifically for QR plates. Once those are available, life will be good!

I also like your #4 Line up. The 24-104 is ideal for outdoor walkaround on a crop body--I have one and love it. The 135L provides that beautiful bokeh and outstanding IQ for those special and artistic moments and the 50 gives you the low-light ability when needed.----But.......It would be very hard for me to pass up the 70-200 II if I was in your position

Yeah, it's a bit of a dilemma... But, on the balance I'd rather have too many choices than too few! I'm still grappling a bit with the duplication in the general purpose range (i.e. having the 17-55mm f/2.8 andthe24-105mm f/4L).

[bob williams]

I looked at the BlackRapid system a while back - it looks very appealing and comfortable, but I was reluctant to go that route because of the inconvenience of swapping out the FastenR-2 for the QR plates on the body or tripod foot

Absolutely right, I had a similar problem as well. When I bought my RRS tripod head, I also bought the RRS camera plate---My plate (7D)had a threaded hole in it that accepetd the d-ring swivel on the black rapid strap----works great, and I don't have to remove my camera plate.----Just a thought.


Bob

[Dave Johnston]

Go 5DII + 24-105... That's what I would do. Two good bodies... better than one.





Dave.

[Jordan]

Here's my vote!: EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L II USM & 50mm f/1.4 II USM.


I one the original of the 70-200 and I also own the 50 II and they are both dead sexy! I'd save the rest of the money for a FF camera down the road, as Pete has it right by saying you'll get more focus lengths from your EF primes. I'd just wait for the next FF body as I think one will be out by years end. I, too, have the 7D (and 50D) and love the 50mm f/1.4 on it. I used to have the 1.8 but the 1.4 is much better. I've used the 50 f/1.2 and it's better yet, but not better for the price. Too expensive for what you get. The 70-200 f/2.8 (I or II) would be worth the price FOR SURE so I wouldn't hesitate to get it! The 135 f/2 is also a dead sexy lens I want badly, but sounds like you might not need it with the lenses you have. Just my suggestions!


- Jordan


www.freshphotohawaii.com

[Sheiky]

Hey John,





not even one tilt-shift in your list? [:P]


Wow anyway you've got some money to spend and already have a few very nice lenses. Personally I wouldn't go for the 24-105 on crop just for the extra advantage of weather-sealing. You're 17-55 will do just fine.


A 5D2 is something I wouldn't do either. Well I did, but as a main-body, not a second one. Then you'll be having 2 brilliant bodies and you probably would use only 1 most of the time. That would be a waste in my eyes. Unless you need to change to wideangle very quickly, I wouldn't do that.


A 70-200 seems like a lens you would definitely enjoy. 2.8 though isn't really necesary since you've already got fast lenses in this focal range. f4 would do great for most of the time and when you think you really need f2.8 you can always switch. A 70-200 f4L IS might be great. Also a lot more handy about half the size of the big canon and sharp from f4 on, plus weathersealing which makes it an ideal rainlens :P But if you're afraid that you might miss the 2.8 aperture you shouldn't do it.


A 50mm fast prime is a nice addition, I just ordered the sigma 50mm 1.4 myself. Hopefully I don't have AF problems, and then I'll be a happy man. Else I'll just return it for a Canon [] But in my opinion, aside from the AF, the sigma is way better and more usable at bigger apertures.


A 35 1.4L....dude awesome! I've seen some shots from Keith and I bet you can be very happy with it. Perhaps even more than with a 50mm prime.


Wow though decision.


I think I would go for a 35mm 1.4 with a 135mm 2.0 Or a MP-E-65 with twinflash or a TS-E 24mm f3.5 L II with some stuff or another lens.


Really I don't think I can help you out here haha [] You already have such a great line-up of lenses, that I would buy something radically different if I had the money, just to make my photos more interesting.


Good luck with deciding, I hope you get some sleep [A]


Jan

[neuroanatomist]

Thanks to everyone for your suggestions! Keep them coming, if anyone has more to add!

I say don't second guess and get the 70-200 2.8 ISII and save for the 35L.

This is where I'm leaning right now. The 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II and a CF monopod for now. Still not certain on the 35mm f/1.4L vs. 50mm f/1.4 - but, if I get the 70-200 II and wait until I've got enough set aside for the 35L, I can decide at that point (35L or 50 1.4 and ... ?). Also, the 35mm f/1.4L is getting a bit long in the tooth (though not as long as the 50mm f/1.4!). All of the under-100mm EF L primes have been updated to a MkII version in the last 4 years, except the 35L. That, combined with rumors of an update to the 50mm f/1.4 (I'd certainly prefer ring USM in that lens), suggest I may want to wait on the purchase of a fast 'normal' prime anyway. In the meantime, I'll shoot for a few indoor sessions with my 17-55mm set to 35mm, and a few sessions with it set to 50mm, and see which I prefer from a focal length perspective.

I forgot to ask,if allowed? What is your fiscal secret? Dipping in to the retirement fund? Stocks,bonds, or poor man taxes(lottery), or plain old work and save?

Dip into the retirement fund, goodness no - that gets 6% of my income off the top, every month (with company matching on top of that!). I'm not quite 40 yet, but if and when I do retire, I want to be able to continue traveling, buying lenses, etc.! Mostly, it's consulting that I do 'on the side' - for example, after a 30 minute consulting call this afternoon, I'll be another $100 closer to that 35L (or whatever). []

The EF 24-105/4L IS is not going to give you anything significantly better than what you already have.

I got to thinking about my upcoming trip to China, and imagining what I'd do when faced with choosing between the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 and an EF 24-105mm f/4L. I decided that if I was going to take the 24-105mm, I'd also need to take the EF-S 10-22mm for the wide end, and since I'd also be bringing a longer lens (100-400mm or 70-200mm), that would be three lenses instead of just 2. With the 17-55mm f/2.8 and the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, I'd have f/2.8 coverage from 17-200mm with IS and excellent IQ across the range (and I could find room for the 1.4x II to go to 280mm f/4).



<div>

A 70-200 seems like a lens you would definitely enjoy. 2.8 though isn't really necesary since you've already got fast lenses in this focal range. f4 would do great for most of the time and when you think you really need f2.8 you can always switch....But if you're afraid that you might miss the 2.8 aperture you shouldn't do it.

I am afraid I'd miss the extra stop. I think if I went for the f/4 IS, I'd find it hard to justify getting the f/2.8 down the line, even if I really wanted that extra stop. I'd rather have the versatility from the outset, even with the size/weight penalty.

A 50mm fast prime is a nice addition, I just ordered the sigma 50mm 1.4 myself.

Nice! Let us know how it works out for you.
</div>

[Sheiky]

I am afraid I'd miss the extra stop. I think if I went for the f/4 IS, I'd find it hard to justify getting the f/2.8 down the line, even if I really wanted that extra stop. I'd rather have the versatility from the outset, even with the size/weight penalty.

Then you really shouldn't buy the f4 version. That's my advice. Point is that the 2.8 is has a really big weight/size penalty and if it is also for spontaneous photos of your wife and kid, it might let you down in some occasions. On the other hand the f4 has it's negatives as well. But if you strongly feel like needing the f2.8 you should go for that. In fact you know big lenses and how they handle so it's shouldn't be to hard to decide. a 100-400 at 100mm is pretty much as big/heavy as the 70-200 2.8 so if you're happy with that lens for those conditions, you're just fine.

A 50mm fast prime is a nice addition, I just ordered the sigma 50mm 1.4 myself.

Nice! Let us know how it works out for you.

I'll certainly do that! I was really having a hard time to decide to go sigma or not. Most reviews are kinda old and price was a big negative. Nowadays sigma and canon cost about the same and I just want the best quality. Hopefully the AF isn't as bad as Bryan experienced. If so I can just bring it back. Anyway I'm looking forward to it!


Thanks [Y]


And let us know what you've decided when you do!

[jsridout]

Having read this entire thread, 2 thoughts come to mind. First, I
wish I had your problem! Second, this all sounds very complicated!


You've got lots of focal lengths to play with but, frankly, it sounds almost like you're burning money just to be burning it. I'm just as much of a techno photographer as the next guy, but one thing I've discovered from a vacation to Italy and chasing my child around the playground and house--I really dislike changing lenses all the time. I prefer to pick the one lens that will work for the majority of the event and leave it on unless I feel compelled to change. That philosophy tends to make primes less useful.


So, I simplified. My gear includes only 3 essential lenses:

• Canon 7D with Grip
• 12-24/4.0 Tokina (a very nice lens)
  
• 24-70/2.8L
• 70-200/2.8L
• 1.4 Extender
• Extension tubes
• 580EXII Speedlight

I got rid of my primes since I always had to force myself to use them anyway. I personally prefer the flexibility of zooms, and I especially like the smaller load of only three lenses to carry around instead of 5 or 6 (even though those 5 or 6 might be lighter).


I'm a BIG fan of constant aperture, zoom lenses. Sure, 2.8 is overkill most of
the time, but when I don't have it is when I feel like I'll need it. For the longest time, I wanted the 24-105/4.0. But, after walking around with a 4.5-5.6 kit lens, then renting a 2.8, I realized that I never wanted anything else, nor did I want to just go halfway at 4.0.


I don't mind walking around the playground/gym/etc with the 70-200/2.8 on my shoulder. It is my favorite and by far most used lens. The 12-24 is my second most. I do wish it were a 2.8 and I tried the 11-16/2.8 from Tokina, but I ended up always using the 16 end and wanting a bit more. So I compromised my 2.8 rule for the 12-24 and it quickly found its way into the rotation. The 24-70 is my least used by far.


I rented a 100/2.8L iS Macro. I loved it, and it will be my next lens somewhere in the future.
After that, I don't know... we'll see what my daughter gets into and
STICKS with to decide whether I need a 2.0 prime or a 300/2.8, etc.


I love the 7D, as I'm sure you do. I like that I get a longer effective focal length and I don't miss the lack of a wide angle with the 24-70, especially since I can go super wide with the 12-24 when the need arises. I won't even consider a 5D at this point. Someday far away, I'll go with a 1.3 crop, but I probably won't ever touch a full frame.


I know I'm not really giving advice as to how to blow a wad of $100s, but just sharing my perspective since it seems that you and I are likely very similar photographers. If I had to give advice, I'd say, don't worry about the gap from 55-70. Get the 70-200/2.8 and ditch the 200/2.0 and the 100-400. Consider ditching the 85/1.8 as well (do you really ever use it?). Then put the net $$ towards a 300 or 400/2.8 or 500/4.0.


Good luck,


Jeremy
Frisco, TX

[Jordan]

Nice reply Jeremy! I like how simple and stream-lined your bag is. Only the essentials! I have the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 and I love it, but it is a bit limited being only 5mm of focal range. I tend to use it in the middle of it's range the most (12-14mm). All my lenses are 2.8 or faster, as I think that's really necessary (though I do really like the 300mm f/4!). A Macro would be a great addition to your kit. Yeah this guy's got some nice gear, but almost too much in my opinion. Like you said, i wish I had his problem


Do you have a website Jeremy?

[Mark Elberson]

3) EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II + EF 50mm f1.4 (incl. hood) &ndash; throw caution to the wind and "Get the II", along with a fast prime. Total cost = $3,050.<span>
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

I would alsoconsider selling the EF 200mm f/2.8<span style="color: #ff0000;"]L. I can't imagine where the marginal increase in sharpness would make we want to use a equal speed prime over a zoom. Sure, it's lighter and a little less obtrusive but it's lack of IS (much bigger deal to me on a crop body) washes that out in my opinion. Once you get used to carrying a 3lb lens around it's really not that big of a deal. My 2lb 24-70mm f/2.8<span style="color: #ff0000;"]L feels light to me :-)


The 50mm f/1.4 is a great lens to have in your bag. It's small, light and super fast...not to mention providing excellent IQ. Whether you get it now or later it's a no-brainer to me.