On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 10:37:30PM -1000, Jeffrey Higa ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> My old film kit (which I have/will sell off): > > Elan 7nE (never could get that eye focus thing to work) > EF 28-135mm USM IS > EF 100mm 2.8 USM macro > EF 100-400 L IS USM > 550 EX Speedlite My first thought would be to simply sell the Elan ans the 28-135 and buy 40D and 17-55/2.8, and keep the rest. But: > I had the EF 300mm f/4 L IS USM. I loved that lens and sold > it to buy the 100-400 zoom. Big mistake. Why was that a mistake? What don't you like in the 100-400? > I'm thinking about getting: > 40D Good. > 580EX Speedlite I'd skip that if money is an issue at all - there's not all that much difference between 550EX and 580EX. > EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS USM > (Keeping the) 100mm f/2.8 USM macro Agreed with those. (I've got both, and I love 'em.) > I'm wondering about the long end though. I like the 300mm distance, I > found the extra 100mm on the 400mm zoom only marginally useful (maybe > because I was too picky of the quality at 400 for a zoom?). If your issue with the 100-400 is image quality (sharpness? what?), chances are you just have a bad copy. However, any of the long L primes will be sharper, as will any of the 70-200L zooms. > Anyway, should I go back to my first love the EF 3000mm f/4 L IS? Or > try the new 200mm f/2.8 L II USM even though it doesn't have the IS? If 300mm is enough for you with a film body, 200mm should be enough with 1.6x crop. Since you mostly shoot handheld, IS will be invaluable. I would suggest 70-200/4L IS, or 70-200/2.8IS if you can handle the bulk and price. The 300/4 is nice but with 1.6x it becomes 480mm, which may be too long for you if you found already 300-400mm of little use. (None of the x-300mm zooms is better than the 100-400, so you probably don't want them.) > My budget will probably be about $3,500 for the above. Hmm. 40D + 17-55/2.8 + 70-200/4IS shouldn't be much more, and selling the Elan, 28-135 and 100-400 should bring in something, too. > My wife thinks > I should just keep all my lenses and just buy a 5D instead. She > thinks the lens conversions and the small sensor is not worth the > money because "it will get obsolete quicker". The only small-sensor lens you're planning is the 17-55/2.8, and it together with 40D costs less than the 5D alone - and produces better pictures than the 5D with 28-135. I doubt the latter will have much better resale value at any foreseeable point in the future either. You'll also save immediately in the long lens, if you want to cover the 200-300mm (35mm-equivalent) range. -- Tapani Tarvainen * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
