The age old question, again. Does this outfit sound good?

Sorry this is long winded.....

I currently have film (gasp) equipment below:
Canon AE-1 with motor drive
Canon FTB
Canon 24 F2.8
Canon 50 F1.8
Canon 135 F2.8
Tokina ATX 100-300 F4

I like the range of lenses that I have and 90% of the time the 100-300 is on the AE1 and the 24 is on the FTB and I ocassionally put the 24 on the AE-1. I rarely use the other two lenses.
I like wildlife shooting and landscapes thus the lens choices on the cameras. With the 100-300 I am always wanting more at the 300 end. I find the F4 to be generally useful most of the time but ocassionally the F4 makes exposures difficult with certain film speeds.
I have been using a A-80 for digital stuff an have gotten in the mindset that I want to go digital and move away from film ( i kind of feel film is now wasteful, PLEASE no hate mail on that) BUT I want the DSLR and all the advantages they come with.
Since it is obvious by my equipment that I keep cameras for a LONG time. The AE-1 was purchased in 1979 and the last lens in 1988 (thus the choice on the 20D), I am hoping to purchase the following before the end of the year.
20D
17-40 F4L
100-400 F4.5-5.6L

This would be about all I can afford for now and will eventually fill in the middle gap. I have considered the 70-200 F2.8 with and without the IS (more so the IS because I hand hold 95% of the time) but at the 200 end that is lacking to my current setup. Even with the 1.6 crop it is essentially equal. I have thought about the 1.4 and 2.0x teles too but again with the IS and the 2X I have heard that this combo is not normally as good as the 100-400 on it's own.

Question is? would anyone change anything and why? I have considered alternatives to the 17-40 to save some money and that is part of my quandry. Like the Tamron 17-35 or similar Sigma but then I lose some of the Canon rebate $$.

Any suggestions, advice would be helpful.
Thanks,
Mike

For sports...

If you find 100-300 useful 90% of the time... I'd go with 70-200 2.8 IS... It's gonna give you 320 mm... But it is MUCH faster. You can also snap a 1.4 tcon and get 320*1.4 mm...

Or you can put your 100-300 on, and you'll gonna have 160-420mm zoom for sports. That's why 100-400 and 100-300 kinda cancel each other out, because the range is basically the same, and both of them are slow.


For wide angle: 17-40 is good and was proven to be good many times.
There's also 12-24 sigma which is said to be a bit soft, but it's full frame.
And there's 10-22 EFS

Can't say anything else.

The 100-400L is a really big, heavy, expensive lens, and unless you need great quality at really high range i'd personally get something lighter. I know nothing of AE-1 or FTB, will any of those lenses fit on the 20D?

The A80 will feel like a toy once you use the 20D. I have the 300D and used my A70 the other day, and it was horrible.

Thanks for the input so far.

Tim, the cameras and lenses are OLD Canon film stuff. The AE-1 is cirica 1978 and my last lens purchased was the 100-300 bought way back in 1987 for my trip to the 1988 winter olympics in Alberta. That is why the comment of keeping cameras for a long time.
As far as weight of the 100-400, my current setup was fairly hefty. I still need to get to a camera store to see the sizes of the 100-400 and 70-200.

Thanks again for the comments.
Mike

oh, right... so it's all fd mount. My bad. I haven't been info photography that long.

Even if you start from scratch... mm*1.6 still applies.

BTDT. When I replaced (well, almost, they're still stashed away "in reserve" ;{)# ) my F-1s, T90 and FD kit, I got the D60 (and Canon released the 10D the next month!) and an Elan 7 (second body, and boy was that a mistake - I just can't bring myself to use film any more so it's never been used) with Tokina 19-35 and Canon 75-300. The 19-35 wasn't wide enough (like you, I was often at 24 mm in 35 format) and the 75-300 just wasn't my Canon 100-300 FD. With the "crop factor" (Doc F's 1.6x) the 75-300 and I had too much camera shake too much of the time. The 75-300 IS was much better, but even pretending to be a 420 it wasn't long enough a fair part of the time. I still carry it when I don't want to haul the 100-400 IS L around. I got the 15-30 Sigma (just before they released the 12-24 - story of my life!) and it lives on my second body (D60, after I got the 20D). Got the A80 as a pocket camera.

So, I can't fault either of your choices. I might consider the Sigma 12-24 or 15-30 (although they zoom backwards from Canon or Tokina) rather than the 17-40, and you do have a fair gap between the two zooms, so you might want something to fill the gap. Maybe the 50 f/1.8 which will give you speed and a bit in the middle for not much money. If you haven't been bumping into the 300 mm end of your existing zoom, the 70-200 IS and 1.4X TC might be good - It'd leave less of a gap between your wide and telephoto zooms and with the crop factor plus 1.4X TC would give you the angle of view of a 450 f/4 in 35 mm.

Think about an external flash too. I have both the 550 and 420; I'd get the 550 (or 580) if I were getting just one now. Since the 550's being discontinued, you might get a price break on it relative to the 580.

I think your road map is very sensible.

I would only ask that you consider what your primary usage will be for the "long" zoom (ie: 100-400mm)

You are quite correct that the 100-400mm offers superior quality to a 70-200mm with a 2X... and if outdoor shooting or wildlife etc.. is your intended use.. the 100-400mm is about the best zoom there is for the job.

But the reason to get an f/2.8 is for the speed. For sports or ANY kind of indoor shooting,.. the 70-200mm f/2.8 is by far a better option...

Also.. though the 2X is not a great solution.. the 1.4X T-con is very good with the 70-200mm.

I love the 17-40mmL as well.. it is a great choice.

Only you can decide on how much of a role money should play, but I went with the Tamron 17-35 (and the 28-75) as the quality seems to be equal optically. There is no question that the Canon 17-40 (and 24-70) are more solidly built and have greater cache, however, they are also heavier. For me, what matters is the optical characteristics and it did not hurt to save some money. At the telephoto end, I have purchased the 70-200L 2.8 IS and love it. I also just got a 1.4x TC. I would like the 100-400, but I am not sure I really need it. I am trying to resist the temptation. Really I am...... Seriously, it depends upoon your needs. I think if you shoot outside primarily doing either big field sports, birding, air shows, etc. then you want the 100-400 for its reach. If you do much indoor shooting and want telephoto, then get the 70-200. The 70-200 with 1.4x and the 1.6 crop factor has a maximum reach of like 440 in 35mm equivalent. It is also sharper and faster than the 100-400. On the other hand, outdoors and with good light, you may find the reach on the 400 enc compelling. Good luck with your choices!

Best,