$7000 to spend...

Question, do I add 600 bucks and go for the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II for the IQ and Sacrifice the range of the 100-400L?

Well you'd better be shooting some rather large wildlife if you are stopping at 200mm

Just ask yourself what u you will use eAch lens for. 70-200 is awesome but large and heavy. Great event lens, capable portrait lens but unwieldy indoors especially if just shooting family.

Just because its a great lens doesn't mean it's great for everyone. For instance if I am indoors shooting an event (or just family) I would rather have a 35/1.4 and 85/1.8 or 100/2 (using 2 bodies) instead of the 70-200. That's me though, others prefer the zoom.

For wildlife no contest, 100-400 for me. The lens isn't as sharp as the 70-200 but still great IQ.

2 lens- 70-200 2.8 IS mk2 and 24-70 2.8 mk2. i got the pair of them online from uk for under 4k. then you,ve 3k to spend on a body, cheapest 5d from uk today is 2200. 800 to spend on crap. maybe a mk3 teleconvertor. what else do you need?

scas wrote in post #15665284
2 lens- 70-200 2.8 IS mk2 and 24-70 2.8 mk2. i got the pair of them online from uk for under 4k. then you,ve 3k to spend on a body, cheapest 5d from uk today is 2200. 800 to spend on crap. maybe a mk3 teleconvertor. what else do you need?

Unfortunately I'm working in dollars..

buy the 2 lens then any body 40d, 1d2, 1ds2, 5d2 or anything else, body doesn't matter that much anyway. 7k usd is about 5400 euro- all you need

and then a 24 inch printer secondhand

cputeq007 wrote in post #15664917
Well you'd better be shooting some rather large wildlife if you are stopping at 200mm

Just ask yourself what u you will use eAch lens for. 70-200 is awesome but large and heavy. Great event lens, capable portrait lens but unwieldy indoors especially if just shooting family.

Just because its a great lens doesn't mean it's great for everyone. For instance if I am indoors shooting an event (or just family) I would rather have a 35/1.4 and 85/1.8 or 100/2 (using 2 bodies) instead of the 70-200. That's me though, others prefer the zoom.

For wildlife no contest, 100-400 for me. The lens isn't as sharp as the 70-200 but still great IQ.

I want to second this. I really don't think some appreciate the size of lens that is really needed for wildlife photography. I was in Banff last summer, and while driving, saw two deer lying in the grass on the side of the road - literally 50 yards off the side of the road, no more. With my 70-300L on a 7D, I still found myself cropping the shots to get usable good images. I could have used a 400mm there, and can see the usefulness of 600/800mm lens for wildlife photography (I have no desire to be nearly as close to a bear as I was the deer). You will use every mm of the 100-400 and then in some cases, be left wanting a longer lens.

For the 100-400 vs 70-200 debate, I'd vote for the 70-200 2.8 and add the 2.0 converter for a 140-400 5.6. I went round and round with this choice and after renting the 100-400 and using the converter, for me, it made more sense to get the converter

Buy whatever your instinct tells you
Body's are not as important as lenses,
Buy the best lenses you can afford
70-200f 2.8 version 2 is amazing
I upgraded to it and have no regrets
When u get the stuff
Throw away all the boxes and travel Hm with only the gear and no signs of receipts or boxes
That way u can claim its all old stuff and they won't bother you at immigration

mike1812 wrote in post #15675094
I want to second this. I really don't think some appreciate the size of lens that is really needed for wildlife photography. I was in Banff last summer, and while driving, saw two deer lying in the grass on the side of the road - literally 50 yards off the side of the road, no more. With my 70-300L on a 7D, I still found myself cropping the shots to get usable good images. I could have used a 400mm there, and can see the usefulness of 600/800mm lens for wildlife photography (I have no desire to be nearly as close to a bear as I was the deer). You will use every mm of the 100-400 and then in some cases, be left wanting a longer lens.

I've been looking at the Sigma 150-500 sample photo thread on here, and was quite surprised of the quality of the lens. Obviously not in the same IQ range of the 70-200 IS II but the photos are very useable.

It's also only $1000 compared to the more expensive canon lenses. I could then reinvest the money on other gear. Nothing sorted. Just thoughts going through my head at the moment.

^^I have no personal experience with that lens, but have read many favorable comments on it. Probably one to put on your "potential" list.

plenty of NYC/NJ members here.... maybe someone can order for you (though not sure who would be willing to put 7K on their card)

MarkyMark22 wrote in post #15650503
I'm from Ireland, so we don't get 'Tuition Loans'..

It's taken months and months, if not years, to save this money.

Just make sure you have other money tucked away in savings. You might want to buy a house someday or need a new car.
Toys are nice and glad that you have saved to get it.

You can buy a nice 5D III outfit.
If you don't strain yourself do it.
It is an advanced armature camera that can last for many many years.
If you plan is really pro or commerical level then not so.
But then there are so many here who think otherwise and are real nobodies.

ekinnyc wrote in post #15676415
plenty of NYC/NJ members here.... maybe someone can order for you (though not sure who would be willing to put 7K on their card)

I live in NJ, and would be willing to have the OP ship the stuff to my place and meet him in NYC. Buy me a beer and a burger for my trouble.