In search of that "perfectly" sharp image

My choice ==> Sell everything and get a 5D Mark II with a 70-200 plus a nifty 50.

Imo, you'd be better off getting the 24-70 which with crop factor becomes 38-112 (covers 80% of your shot range)

a 70-200 = 112-320 on crop body -> only 10% of your shots

Of course that means when you switch to full frame, you'd have consider a longer lens at that point in time...

+ 1

Get Used:
mark II $1500
70-200 2.8 IS mk1 $1300 (it is bulky)
50 1.4 $300
Yongnuo Flash $100
keep your 18-55 for video and group shot until you can fill the void.

Why do you need L lenses? Why not get the best lenses for your needs? They may be Ls and they may not. I would suggest getting rid of all those lenses and consider one of the 70-200mm f4 lenses. I would also consider the Sigma 17-50mm 2.8. (The Sigma has better IQ than the Canon 17-40mm which is an L) This combination will give you great IQ from 17mm to 200mm.

Image sharpness is not always a function of the lens being used. Are you shooting from a tripod whenever you can? Do you use MLU and a remote?

Great, lots of suggestion so far.
I try to clear up a view things.

This is only about camera and lens. I already own tripods, constant lighting, soft boxes, umbrellas, radio triggers, remotes and several flashes and have no need for anything else.

I also have no problem taking good sharp pictures with the equipment that I have.
It's all about taking the next step, which is upgrading my lenses to the "better" lenses and finally move to a FF camera, not because I must, but because I want.

With better lenses, I mean:
When taking pictures with my 18-135, the focus seems not as fast, not as right on, as with my 55-250.
The image usually looks just that bid better.
Also, if I take pictures with my 55-250 at f/8 and around 70-150mm, the picture is very sharp and I love it, but the more I move away from those settings, the less sharp the pictures get.
So, if the picture would be as clear at f/4, f/8 and f/16 and at 55mm, 80mm and 250mm, I would have no need to replace this lens, I'm limited to a small range on this lens because of the drop off in quality. I now want a lens, that keeps the quality/sharpness throughout all of its range as much as possible.

Also, when I eventually move to FF, all my lenses become useless, because they are EFS lenses.

I guess right now I don't have anything to lose by buying a 70-200 f4 L. Even if the outcome is not what I'd expect, I probably wouldn't lose much of the investment, since they seem to keep their value pretty steady.

The question is, should I buy this lens now, or are deals usually better around Christmas time?

Thanks for all the suggestions.

Well as others have already said, why FF ?? What do you think you will get from FF. You haven't mentioned printing large, you haven't mentioned shooting in low light as you will use flash so what will FF give to your style of shooting ??
You said in your first post you want to take the next step. Well, the next step is better lens. Better lens for you, are not nessessarily L lens, some will be lens designed to work on a crop camera. The 18-135 is not a lens known for its IQ. The 55-250 is a sharp budget lens but wont compete with the 70-200's whilst the 18-55 again, is ok as a budget lens.
Spend on a 17-55 and a 70-200 ( any varient ) and you will be covered for just about anything. Buy used and you can sell with minimum to no loss. This is the next step and will get you the biggest leap in IQ for the least amount of money compared to going FF and a whole new line-up of lens. Again, check the threads on here, it has been shown over and over the best photographs are made by the best photographers. If your rubbish with a crop, you'll be rubbish with FF..........
Why not show us a couple of your favourite pics you've shot. Maybe people can show you ways to improve what you are currently doing without spending at all..........

i'm still a bit lost as to why you want to move to FF...usually someone moves to FF to get a wider FOV,...or shallow DOF...neither of these seem to interest you as you're not even using an ultra wide angle lens...or any sort of fast lens at all on your current 60D

buy the lenses now...no point in waiting 3 months to save at most $50...

I know everyone says lenses first, but in my experience going to FF was just as much of an improvement to my photography as was getting better lenses. I say you get the 5d2 with whatever lenses you feel would fit your style and needs best.

HeleneD wrote in post #14848537
I know everyone says lenses first, but in my experience going to FF was just as much of an improvement to my photography as was getting better lenses. I say you get the 5d2 with whatever lenses you feel would fit your style and needs best.

He can't afford to buy any camera if he buys lens, no point in a 1DX if you can't afford a lens to put on the front of it

h14nha wrote in post #14848718
He can't afford to buy any camera if he buys lens, no point in a 1DX if you can't afford a lens to put on the front of it

He has $2500 if I read that correctly. A 5D2 can be bought used for $1500. That gives him $1k for lenses. That seems like a good start to me. I started with the 5D and 35L.

h14nha wrote in post #14848514
Why not show us a couple of your favourite pics you've shot. Maybe people can show you ways to improve what you are currently doing without spending at all..........

OK, maybe this helps to understand what I mean.

I haven't done any PS process that I usually do (colors etc)
when you look at the eye/glasses that faces you, it is as sharp as I can get, but if you move to the other side of the classes/ the other eye, its totally out of focus and that already with f/8.
If I shoot at f/16, I can't get any part as sharp at all.
I think a better lens/FF camera will keep it sharp at a much versatile f range, maybe from f/5.6 to f/16 or better.

http://buhlinger.com …one/IMG_6685_or​iginal.jpg

http://buhlinger.com …one/IMG_6698_or​iginal.jpg

looks all a bit soft to me. I'd suggest a better lens like the 70-200 f/4 IS or the 2.8 version if you can afford it. 70-200 is a lot sharper wide open with better contrast and color rendition. it's better to spend money on lenses first, especially if you are on a budget and can't afford to upgrade body at the same time.

Data_Android wrote in post #14849721
I haven't done any PS process that I usually do (colors etc)
when you look at the eye/glasses that faces you, it is as sharp as I can get, but if you move to the other side of the classes/ the other eye, its totally out of focus and that already with f/8.
If I shoot at f/16, I can't get any part as sharp at all.
I think a better lens/FF camera will keep it sharp at a much versatile f range, maybe from f/5.6 to f/16 or better.

a FF camera will give you even less DOF if you frame it the same....you'll have an even greater chance of having one eye in focus, and one eye not in focus...