Listen to the better half... :-)
Definitely keep those lenses and buy a 5D! I'd give the 100-400 a shot
on the 5D before you give up on it.
It is one of my favorite lenses. The 100 2.8 macro is great.
With my 5D my main lens is the 24-70L, but I was very torn about getting
the 24-105. Some wedding work
swung me to the 24-70 and I've not been sorry. Eventually I also bought
the sigma 12-24 for super-wide, but i'll
bet you will be happy enough with the 28-135 on a full frame.
-Bob
Jeffrey Higa wrote:
Hi,
I'm currently in the process of switching over my gear to digital. I
shoot mostly in four areas: 1) Family kid stuff (my duaghter is 6,
so I have many more years of hauling around stuff besides camera
gear); 2) 1:1 Macro of terrestrial lizards (for my wife's work, she a
herpetologist. I used to be her sherpa, somehow I worked my way up to
staff photographer now); 3) Mammals (my wife's work takes me out to
some remote areas, so I do the whole long telephoto thing) plus I live
in Hawaii so Marine mammals are also frequent subjects; 4) Abstracts
(I worked as a graphic designer for over 15 years, so I find myself
taking abstract photos every now and again).
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
You'll notice the IS zooms and lack of primes and the lack of a true
wide angle. I just could not handle carrying around a bag of primes
(I tried it, I really did, even owned the old 50mm f/1.0 at one time)
and eventually whittled my kit down to those zooms, plus the macro.
Plus, I hardly ever use a tripod. I have a monopod but use it only
rarely. 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.
I'm thinking about getting:
40D
580EX Speedlite
EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS USM
(Keeping the) 100mm f/2.8 USM macro
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?). 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? Or any
other ideas?
My budget will probably be about $3,500 for the above. 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".
Anyway, any thoughts for a slightly better than average photographer?
Thanks,
Jeff
*
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
