My setup?

Currently i have

30d
20d
sig 10-20
sig 17-70
canon 50mm 1.8


My plan is to sell the 20d and 17-70 and pick up,

85 1.8
sig 24-70 2.8
70-200 f4L non is.


How is this combo?Should i sell the 17-70 for the 24-70? I like the 2.8 as i shoot in darker areas some times.

Sounds like a sound plan to me, as long as you keep the 10-20 mm in there!

Deff gonna keep the 10-20 love it for landscapes. How is the 24-70 compared to the 17-70?

I've never used the 17-70 but I have the 24-70 and its great. While it doesn't have HSM, it focuses quickly but isn't as accurate in low light (but its the same story for most lenses). It is large though, but I don't find that to be a problem.

Looks like a good plan. I have the 24-70 and it's a good lens. You won't regret getting it.

If you're going for the 70-200 f/4 I'd advise you to get IS version. I have the non-IS and I find it quite hard to hand hold it (even outside if the day is cloudy). Had I known about it earlier I'd spend the additional $ and get the IS version (wich is slightly superior optically as well).
I also have the sig 17-70 and I recently realized that I'd miss it much if I had to sell it.
And if I were you I would not bother with 85/1.8 having the 50/1.8.

So my choice would be - get rid of 20D and get 70-200 f/4 IS

Wojson wrote in post #6194987
If you're going for the 70-200 f/4 I'd advise you to get IS version. I have the non-IS and I find it quite hard to hand hold it (even outside if the day is cloudy). Had I known about it earlier I'd spend the additional $ and get the IS version (wich is slightly superior optically as well).
I also have the sig 17-70 and I recently realized that I'd miss it much if I had to sell it.
And if I were you I would not bother with 85/1.8 having the 50/1.8.

So my choice would be - get rid of 20D and get 70-200 f/4 IS

I'll agree with you on the 70-200f/4IS...awesome lens and a good recommendation.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on the 85/1.8. The 50/1.8 is a child's toy compared to the 85.

I would keep both cameras

I would keep the 20D. Using the 20D with the 10-20mm and the 30D with the 17-70mm, you would have a focal range of from 10-70mm. The use of a second camera (especially on an OPTECH Reporter strap set-up) really adds versatility to your shooting.

http://www.amazon.com …trap-Optech/dp/B000819P98

If you add a tele zoom to your lens battery, you could have an unbroken focal range of 17 to 200 or 300mm (depending on which tele lens you choose). I use a 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens in conjunction with a 70-200mm f/4L IS lens on my 30D and 40D cameras and I am in love with that combination.

Using a second camera also adds an insurance policy. I recently tripped climbing a slippery slope on the first day of a ten-day Kenai Peninsula, Alaska trip. My 40D which was on a monopod, landed between my jaw and a rock. I cut my lip and broke the camera (which has since been rapaired back to like-new status).

If I did not have my second camera with me (a 30D) I would have ended up with virtually no photos of a very interesting and picturesque ten days.

Murphy's Law states, "The likelyhood of a piece of gear failing is in a direct relationship to the importance of the photography and in an indirect relationahip to the availability of backup equipment!"