Now that I have FF, I feel the need to change up my gear a bit!

So, here's the scenario: I recently sold a 1.6x crop and moved to FF, the change has been very enlightening, and makes me want new gear

I have considered two possibilities:

1. Sell 70-200, buy 24-105 & 100-400

OR

2. Maybe sell 70-200, buy 17-40 & 100-400

With the first I'd have just three lenses (which I would actually prefer) and a focal range of 24-400. Alternatively, with the second, I would have wider capabilities but no IS and some gaps in the focal range.

If I went with the first option, the WA would stay on the 1Ds while the telephoto would stay on the 1D with occasional use of the nifty. I prefer not to switch lenses often, so this is the preferable setup.

With the other option, I'd likely still need to sell the 70-200 to get enough for the other two, so I suppose this would also be a two-primary lens setup. Although, I may have enough to keep the 70-200 if I postpone the purchase and save up a little longer.

Now, I need your opinions on the subject. Which setup would you prefer and why?

All input is greatly appreciated, and feel free to recommend other lenses (just be mindful of my budget :lol

Thanks,

Benjamin

Get 24-105, keep the 70-200.

Numenorean wrote in post #13916946
Get 24-105, keep the 70-200.

What about on the longer end? 200mm is too short for my purposes

Buy a 2x TC?

Or buy a 24-105 and 100-400....and keep the 70-200... lol

Numenorean wrote in post #13916959
Buy a 2x TC?

Or buy a 24-105 and 100-400....and keep the 70-200... lol

Too much degradation of IQ and far too slow for me. And I wish I could (unfortunately *WAY* outside of my budget)

Postpone the purchase a little longer and keep the 70-200. I love the 100-400, but if I was out shooting midrange telephoto I'd rather use the 70-200 from 100-200 any day. The 24-105 makes a great pairing with those two.

Numenorean wrote in post #13916959
Buy a 2x TC?

Or buy a 24-105 and 100-400....and keep the 70-200... lol

Its an f/4L... Not an f/2.8... I wouldnt recommend a 2x TC as you will lose AF/Be down to center point AF and the optical quality is a bit mushy

Heres another option, instead of the 100-400 upgrade to the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II and a 2x tcon.. Then you'd have a fast aperture telephoto zoom AND a fairly good 140-400....

The 17-40 is cheaper than the other lenses you're looking at, So I'd save it for last as its easier to get the money together to purchase it at a later date

Snydremark wrote in post #13916975
Postpone the purchase a little longer and keep the 70-200. I love the 100-400, but if I was out shooting midrange telephoto I'd rather use the 70-200 from 100-200 any day. The 24-105 makes a great pairing with those two.

I need the new gear by June (for an Alaskan Cruise), and I don't think that would be enough time for me to acquire that kind of money.

KenjiS wrote in post #13916981
Its an f/4L... Not an f/2.8... I wouldnt recommend a 2x TC as you will lose AF/Be down to center point AF and the optical quality is a bit mushy

Heres another option, instead of the 100-400 upgrade to the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II and a 2x tcon.. Then you'd have a fast aperture telephoto zoom AND a fairly good 140-400....

The 17-40 is cheaper than the other lenses you're looking at, So I'd save it for last as its easier to get the money together to purchase it at a later date

I think that may also be outside of my budget, even if I get the mk I

BenjaminMH wrote in post #13917001
I think that may also be outside of my budget, even if I get the mk I

My advice only works for the MkII it handles a TC well enough to get close to some copies of the 100-400... Mk1 doesnt...

if you hate switching lenses and that, The 24-105 and 100-400 option seems great.. Though if i may also suggest, theres an awesome Sigma 50-500mm OS that is worth consideration, Gets a bit longer than the 100-400 and a bit wider as well, and optically is its equal... In practice the OS works better as well....

I like option 1 (Sell 70-200, buy 24-105 & 100-400)

But in the mean time, I would keep your 50mm 1.8 and 70-200 4.0 and add a 1.4x teleconverter. (the 1.4x almost makes up for the 1.6 crop loss on the long end) The Canon EF 1.4x does not degrade like the 2x and you should be able to find one used for about $200. The Kenko Teleplus Pro 300 DG 1.4x is a good alternate as well.

70-200 4.0 plus 1.4x (280mm) vs 100-400 (at 300mm) http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=5​&APIComp=1

Keep the 70-200 and add a wider lens of your choice.

Rent a 100-400 (or Sigma 120-400 or 150-500) for the cruise.

msowsun wrote in post #13917029
I like option 1 (Sell 70-200, buy 24-105 & 100-400)

But in the mean time, I would keep your 50mm 1.8 and 70-200 4.0 and add a 1.4x teleconverter. (the 1.4x almost makes up for the 1.6 crop loss on the long end) The Canon EF 1.4x does not degrade like the 2x and you should be able to find one used for about $200. The Kenko Teleplus Pro 300 DG 1.4x is a good alternate as well.

70-200 4.0 plus 1.4x (280mm) vs 100-400 (at 300mm) http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=5​&APIComp=1

I really like this idea. I have seen from another user that the 100-400 produces some very acceptable images with a 1.4x, so I would probably hold onto it even after the 70-200 was sold.

Rent the 100-400 for the cruise.

Excuse me but you have 2 bodies an 2 lenses... none of the bodies are really all that great, and tghe lenses are so so, imo, considering what is available today. If I were you I would be investing in lenses and not be so concerned about "D" bodies.

bohdank wrote in post #13917195
Rent the 100-400 for the cruise.

Excuse me but you have 2 bodies an 2 lenses... none of the bodies are really all that great, and tghe lenses are so so, imo, considering what is available today. If I were you I would be investing in lenses and not be so concerned about "D" bodies.

My 1D and 1Ds are MORE than capable for my needs, and I have taken many more than satisfying photos with my "so so" lenses. I have no desire to have the Latest & Greatest and I feel far more comfortable working with older technology. I feel some strong judgement based on equipment alone. I have no future plans of upgrading my bodies, as I am quite content with the images they produce (isn't that the whole point?). As for the lenses, they are the reason I created this thread, I am looking to get some additional high quality L's. I am choosing glass over bodies because the bodies do exactly what I need them to do.

I am not mad, and I do appreciate your response (I think I may just resort to renting the lens) but please try and be less judgemental on the gear of others.