I am about to buy a Canon Rebel XTi, but I am not sure what lenses I want to purchase for it. I want something that will take nice crisp pictures and be able to zoom in on wildlife etc... from a ways away. I dont want to spend a rediculous amount of money on one, but I don't want to be cheap either. I was thinking a 70-300mm between 200-600 dollars. Anybody have any suggestions?

the cannon is fine as long as it fits your hands (too small for me). in terms of lenses: faster is better (but more pricey)

most cameras "come" with a 20-70 mm or there abouts lens. add to that a wide angle (10-20mm) and a tele (100-300mm) and you've got a nice setup.

don't buy cannon if you can help it -- I think they're way overpriced. Look to Tamron or Sigma. They make VERY good lenses.

For serious wildlife pics nothing beats a 300mm f/2.8 lens but these start about $2500. a good 100-300 f4-5.6 will go about $500 (I'll show some pics in a minute).

If you're going to get just one lens, I would highly recommend getting a 70-200m f/2.8 . A fast, mid range that will do alot for <$1000.

FWIW, I have the following (#s are approximate):

Tamron 19-35
Sigma 10-20
Minolta 20-70
Minolta 18-70
Cannon 30-150
Minolta 100-300
Minox 62ED scope with adapter (1400mm f18 equivalent)
and am shopping for a Sigma 300 f/2.8

these are recent pics with a Sony DSLR and the 100-300 f4-5.6 lens at 300mm

Not to be unpleasant but every single one of those photos except #4 is a shining example of exactly why you SHOULD spend more on Canon glass. Features like IS and USM are extremely usefull and even more so IMO on BIF photos.
Back to the OP's question. I use a 70-200L F4 IS which you can pick up used around $800-850. (watch FredMiranda.com) I often use it on my XTi with the 1.4X TC and get 280mm not considering the 1.6 crop factor.
In the price/focal range you are looking at;
The 70-300 Canon consumer lens falls nicely in your budget. $550.
The 70-200L F4 non-IS is $580 new and that would be my suggestion as you will get the sharpness and quality of L glass as well as USM with out the expense of IS. You can easily find a 1.4x TC later.
Here are some samples of the 70-200L F4IS with the 1.4x. The first is a 100% crop to show the sharpness. The second is with the 1.4x, no crop, no PP. The last is the 70-200 without the 1.4x TC. Expect the non IS varient to be perform nearly as well.

I have a Canon Rebel XT (would like to upgrade, but cannot justify it because my Rebel works so well) and my "default" lens is the 28-135 IS. I've been quite happy with it. (I have to steal Sitka's 300 every once in awhile, however)

Stetson,
Very nice pictures!
M

Thank you. I always enjoy yours as well!

don't sweat it -- I get shot down all the time

and I do see the limitations of my lenses (and my skills) -- hence the desire to buy better as I get more serious about learning to take good pics.

UL I have no interest in shooting any one down. Just trying to help. If you want to shoot BIF then you need a lens with a blistering fast AF like the cannon 400L 5.6. I think you just picked the wrong photos to make your point. Tokina, Tamron and Sigma all make nice glass. In the Focal range/price point the OP is asking about though I think he's better off with Canon.
You might want to clean your sensor if you haven't since you took theese images. There are a lot of dust spots. Especially #2 and 3.

Thanks to all for the feed back. Stetson what is a 1.4x TC? And about what price range could I get one for?

he only checks in a couple times a day -- I'll attempt an explanation:

A TC is a teleconverter.
It's basically a secondary lens that fits between the camera and the primary lens in use.
They come in two sizes: 1.4x and 2x.
The 1.4x extends the focal length by that much (a 300mm lens becomes a 420mm) and "slows" the lens by one f-stop (2.8 to 4).
A 2x teleconverter extends the focal length by 2x (300mm to 600mm) and "slows" the lens by 2 f-stops (2.8 to 5.6).
They work best with fixed focal length lenses but some work well with zooms too. Most good ones are a few hundred bucks (however you really get two lenses (a 300 & a 600, say) for much less than the cost of two primary lenses).

make sense ??

It does. Thank you very much for the explenation.

Matt pretty much nailed it. The only thing I would add is that when you are starting out as a general rule IMO you should steer clear of all 2x telextenders as they tend to degrade image quality noticeably more than 1.4X TC's. Common brands for teleconverters; Kenko, the least expensive and they make a few different models. Be sure to get the best one they make if you use this brand ($200 ish). Sigma $200, Canon $280. The Canon has lens coatings the others do not have so the IQ is better but how much better is subject to the users experience and the other equipment in use. The Kenko is very popular. You want to choose a TC after you get your lenses or at the same time as some brands have compatability issues with select lenses of different manufacturers. In terms of pure IQ your wish list (not considering cost, lenses listed are to illistrate my point only not reccomendations) in very general terms would run like this;
1) Prime lens. IE 400mm f5.6
2) Zoom Lens IE 100-400 f5.6
3) Zoom lens with 1.4 TC (+1 f stop)
4) Zoom lens with 2x TC
5 Lens with stacked TC's (subject to compatability of both camera and lens)

Most wind up using a zoom plus a 1.4 TC due to cost and flexability. A zoom lens will see more use for most. In the future you can then expand your lens collection if you want/need to based on what you like to shoot.

What you didn't tell us is what is going to be your primary walk around lens. I suggest getting the XTi kit with the 18-55. This lens gets a bad rap on the internet but I really like it. It only adds $70 or so to the body. No IS, NO USM but it takes great pictures and has a very close focus. I use a Canon EFS 17-55 IS f2.8 which is around 1k and I still use this little kit lens from time to time. Here are a few samples from the XTi and the kit lens. All hand held. Minimal PP, No sharpening or madd photoshop skills applied.
















BTW, It was the people on this forum that really started me on this photo venture. A few years ago I had no idea how to even post a photo. The XTi is a fantastic camera for the $$$.

I will add that having both the XT and the 20D here in the house and being able to use them both, had I to do it over, I would spend the extra $$ and get the 20D. It seems more solid, and in my mind it is more user friendly. I chose the XT because it fit my small hands much better, it is lighter, and came with about the same bells and whistles. As I stated before, with what I have, I can't justify an upgrade. The XT is still a great camera.

Having had a chance to use the 30D, 40D and XTi I personally would not choose either the 20D (obsolete) or 30D (still available-$980 with the 18-55 kit lens) over the XTi. I'll soon have a 40D but I won't be letting the XTi go. The XTi with kit lens at B&H is $589 while the 40D body alone is $1299. That's a major price jump even for the 30D. If you did opt for a 30D over the XTi there are a ton of used 30D's available at the moment. It's always a good idea to go to a local shop or Best Buy and play with each before buying.

Please understand my XT and A's 20D were bought a few years ago. (hardly obsolete) I was trying to make a comparison, that would still be valid between the XTI and the 40D. The technology is moving way too fast for my poor little brain!

The 20D is obsolete only in the fact that you can no longer buy one NIB. Canon is basicly on a 18 month cycle for new modles and they are bit a bit of a technological odd duck in the sense that they frequently introduce the newest technology on their lower end products. If it flies then they use it on the better cameras after it's proven. This is one of the reasons that I would stick with the XTi even over the 30D but that is subject solely to personal preference and price point. For some one starting out I'd still suggest the XTi over the 40D as the price difference buys a nice piece of glass.

Yes, it would!!!

Stetson
One major difference between the Rebel and the xxD series is the buffers. The speed with which you can take multiple pictures with the 20D is mindboggling. The Rebel, fairly slow.

Where we will set up a floating fish carcass in a quiet lagoon to take eagle pictures as they swoop in is one of many examples where it makes a difference. BW's sheep last fall was another.
art

I my self like the Canon lens here is a photo with my 5D & 70-200 2.8f..

Here is a 5D & 24-70mm 2.8f lens photo..

Here is 20D & 50mm 1.4f lens.

Those are nice shots! I love all the eyes in all of them! (especially the last)
M

Thanks, The eyes is where the color is and keeping them in focus can make the photo a little better.. :GRIN:
Randy...

In the context of the conversation for a new DSLR user that seems a fairly moot point. While the 40D has a faster burst rate than the XTi it is also a lot faster than a 30d. Technology is evolving at a staggering pace. Burst rate really says very little about over all IQ which is far more likely to be the main focus for most. I'd be a lot more interested in continuous shooting rates Vs burst rates as this is going to have a far greater impact if action, bird in flight or sports photography are your primary interest.
For any one starting out cost is likely a big issue and IMO glass is far more relevant than up-graded bodies. The amount of residual expense in this hobby is staggering. Software, tri-pods, BH, Bags, cleaning suplies, cards, etc.
I can not think of a time I have ever lost an image on the XTi due to burst rate or even continuous shooting rate for that matter and 99% of the time I shoot Jpeg and RAW. The sheer number of people using poor quality cards probably has more real world effect on this than actual body performance.
There are, at least for me, several upgrades that make the 40D a worthy addition but honestly burst rate as well as some of the other marketing stuff such as live view and partial weather sealing are pretty low on my list.
The major improvements I see;
The viewfinder depending on the size of your wallet could be worth the price of admission alone. Improved AF X point sensors at f5.6 or faster plus improved center sensor with f2.8 or faster glass and multiple exposure MLU.

The diffence to me is the viewfinder and body size. Dont like a small body on a big heaveyweight lens like a 70-200mm 2.8..Not a good balance... If u shoot for hours at a time small frame camera bodies arnt a good choice even if u have small hands...

The traditional 2 lens battery is a 28 - 80 and a 70 - 210. I like to get aperatures down to 2.8, but you'll pay twice what you will for a 5.6 worth it though. I have about 25 years experience shooting sports, weddings, advertising, and the weirder assignments known to man. Those two lenses and a good Metz flash will get most things done. Everyone's going digital now and I don't know the way things are going what's good now, but traditional 35 mm and medium format, I can help.

I'd recommend 2

35-170 class for close work

100-400 class for distance work.

Spot

Some really great images posted in this thread so far.

This might not be what you're looking for, but here's a few pics taken with Canon's top of the line of equipment. Please keep in mind that most of these were just quickly processed for web viewing, and might need some slight color adjustment. I usually only do this prior to printing.

All of these images are from here in Wyoming, 2007.

If you have any specific questions regarding nature/wildlife photography gear or techniques, please ask and I think I can give you some insight.













[img]http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p273/rdebernardi/Web_IMG_5912.jpg[/img]

[img]http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p273/rdebernardi/Web_IMG_5682.jpg[/img]

Those are some awesome photos!!! Thanks for sharing. Nice sharpness!
M

#5 is unreal, and that's saying something considering the sharpness on #1 and the size of that bull elk.

Can I hang around you for six months?

rb

Ok VTi, I gotta do it.

Consider me a beginner with good equipment (20D, 16-35L (2006 model), 24-105L, and 100-400L).

Give me a primer on wildlife photography. I would ask you in PM, but I figure LOTs of folks want to know how to take pictures like what you posted.

I understand that, depending on how in-depth we get, that's asking a lot, so please, if you would, how about a basic primer for the newbie.

If you started a new thread, I think it would be a home run. In any case, I know I would be quite interested.

Did I mention, NICE pics?

rb

I can vouch for his cougar-spotting ability!

VTi, Great shots. I personally like #4. Is #5 an HDR image?

VTi-

AWESOME shots.

I second that!

I can spot the hell out of cougars, too. Even where there ain't so many. 'Course, it's easier when they run in packs.

rb

OMG! I don't think I've seen photos so vivid and sharp before. Unbelievable. And great opportunities on wildlife to boot.

Hello everyone ... and thanks so much for all the kind words regarding my photos.

I apologize for not posting anything sooner, but I was on a small, 3-day photography trip and just returned this evening. Here's a few images from today and yesterday. Sorry I've only had a chance to download a few sheep images, but got quite a few moose, elk, and coyote images as well as few bald and golden eagles.

More to follow regarding some of the questions posed.

You are correct in your observation. That landscape is an HDR comprised of 8 individual images.

Rick -- You bet brother Just let me know when you'll be in my neck of the woods (Wyoming), and we'll fill some compact flash cards. That day I shot those elk images, I filled 16 Gig of memory

Thank you very much I appreciate the kind words.

Here's a copy of a PM I sent to Ric when some info was requested. Nothing fancy, and certainly not in-depth at all, but just a list of important things to consider when taking wildlife images. If you have any specific questions, please don't hesitate to ask away. I'm sure most of this info will be common sense to some of the photographers here, but some good basic info nevertheless.

If more in-depth discussions would be helpful, I'd be happy to help out if I can.

Also, the gear used for most of these photos:

Canon 1D MK III, 1Ds MK II, 40D
EF 500mm f/4 L IS
EF 300mm f/2.8L IS
Gitzo 1325 tripod w/ Wimberley Head II

=======================================

Rick. Man, I sure appreciate you enjoying my images. I don't really consider myself a special photographer, I just put myself where the wildlife is, and work very hard to get the best images I can.

You have a fantastic kit, very capable of capturing you some top quality images. That landscape I posted of the Tetons was taken with the 16-35 II, very similar to yours. In fact I haven't noticed a shred of difference between them so far.

To me, wildlife is the easiest type of photography to get professional quality images. Of course, the hardest part is to put yourself in front of worthy subjects. Then luck has to be on your side a bit to have some nice lighting that's not too harsh. I look for bright but overcast days, the sky/clouds can act like a big flash diffuser.

So... VERY quick, down and dirty list of important issues in my mind.

#1) Good Light. You will not achieve good images without good light. Sure you can sidestep it a bit, use some creative techniques to make up for it, but great images need great light. 1-2hrs after sunrise, and 1-2hrs before sunset. These are known as "magic hour" to photographers. The light being at such a low angle in the sky casts a nice, warm, glowing light rather than the blue cast regular daylight.

#2) Exposure. Do your very best to NAIL exposure. When I'm photographing a nice subject it's not casual at all. It's like work. Constantly bumping up and down exposure comp, ISO, and shutter speeds to give me a nice choice of different images when I sit down to process.

#3) Shutter Speed. Shutter speed is king. With your 1-4, I'd keep it at 1/500th minimum, and adjust your ISO to compensate. Also, being the owner of that same lens, avoid 400mm and f/5.6! Use either about 350mm and 5.6, or better yet, 400mm and f/7.1 or higher. At least that's the case with my 1-4, images soften up substantially when using the aforementioned combination of settings. With that tangent aside, keep in mind this... It's much easier to fix up a slightly noisy image (from higher ISO) than it is to fix up a blurry image (due to slow shutter speeds). Keep that speed up.

#4) Use a tripod!, or at least a good solid rest. No matter how high the shutter speeds, a tripod will always yield sharper images.

#5) Composition. Really concentrate on good composition, and this might very well mean you have to scramble yourself to a slightly different location. I'd always opt for getting 1 good image from a better vantage point than to reel off 100 images from just wherever it was convenient. This is of course more important for landscapes than wildlife. But in the case of wildlife, my (very general) rule of thumb is if the subject doesn't fill about 70% of the frame, then go wider and grab a more environmental or habitat type shot. You'll always be happier with this result than having to crop out 80% of your resolution to get a frame filling portrait animal image. I don't think I posted any examples, only posted frame filling portraits. If you do end up zooming out for a habitat photo, try to never place the subject in the center of the image. There are of course some exceptions, but usually the result is much more pleasing with the subject off center, both above/below as well as left/right of optical center.

Now, there's of course much more in depth info that could be discussed, but I think these 5 things are the most important to keep in mind while shooting.

The next subject would be post processing! In my mind equally as important as the actual photography.

Thank you again for the compliments on my images, that's what makes it all worth it for me.

Have a safe trip, an promise to post a report with images when you return.

Rob

Rob this a awesome info thanks!! Do you use mirror lock-up on your landscape photos?
randy...

That's a skill I'm trying to learn right now. I just got back from two weeks of shooting in Hawaii and it was a a real challange. Dark foregrounds and blownout high lights. Either that or everything was green or there was just very little to show the true scale in the shot.
My tri-pod set up; Gitzo 2540 with Really Right Stuff BH-40 LRII and Markins TB-20 tripod base and Op-Tech carrying strap.
I was lucky enough to get some decent shots of a wild Ne-Ne (Hawaiian Goose) couple. There are only 500-1000 of theese guys left in the wild.

Stetson nice photos.. I to like the GITZO tri-pod this is my GT2530 and BENRO KS-1 ball head..

Thanks Randy. The 2530 was my first choice but I went with the 2540 because at 22" folded I can get it in a standard carry on. My whole rig with the Markins plate and BH is about 4.25#. I purchased both both the G1540 and G2540 as well as the Markins M-10 and RRS-B40 for a SXS comparison. The 1540 is nice and light but with the wind in the places I seem to wind up it would get used a lot less. Here's my rig.

Stetson -- Some great images you posted here. Congrats my friend, and please post more of Hawaii.

I was trying to simplify my above statement regarding the HDR. That was actually a 48-image stitched pano/HDR. 6 individual framings, each with 8 different exposures. I know this is a lot of work for one photo, but I really wanted this one in a large print. It ended up getting printed to 40"x30", and is hanging in my great room. Looks fantastic, but much work went into it. This small web version doesn't do it any justice

HDR techniques were made for the exact reason you mentioned, as you know. Try that in combination with a stitched pano for some awesome results.

I'm a huge fan of HDR's and try to use this method whenever possible. I even use HDR on wildlife images if they happen to stay still enough for 3-5 images. The trick here is to set up your slr's AEB function, and use high speed continuous shooting. Wiht my 1DmkIII, shooting at 10 frames per second, I can take a 5 shot exposure bracket in roughly half a second. If the subject can stay still for .5sec, which they usually do, these are the best quality images that can be had. I don't have many, but when the time is right it's the only way to go.

Rob

Very nice rig Stetson.. What do you shoot the most people, wildlife, or landscape pictures? Most of the pictures I take are of people would like to do more wildlife..

Yes I do. Sometimes I get away without it if shutter speeds are higher than, say 1/320sec.

Good point I should have mentioned... MLU = Your Friend.

+1 on the Gitzo pods y'all are posting images of. A better tripod system cannot be had.

I use a Gitzo 1325 with a Wimberley II Gimbal head and G-1321 leveling base for my big glass, 500/4 or larger. For the smaller stuff I use a Gitzo 1228 with RRS BH-55 head. Also, all my cameras wear RRS L-brackets, and all lenses wear RRS lens plates.

Rob what lens do you use the most for wildlife? Been thinking of getting a new lens what would u recommend?
My set up is.
5D & 20D
24-70mm 2.8
50mm 1.4
70-200m 2.8

Thanks randy..

Hi Randy. You've some great equipment there, definitely good to go for professional landscapes.

For all my wildlife images I mostly use my 500/4L-IS. Also, I try to always have the 300/2.8L-IS slung over my shoulder on a second body for when the subject gets closer.

I suppose it depends on what you want to spend, and how serious you are about getting pro quality wildlife images.


Reach is key. You'll want something in the 400-600mm range. I have to recommend the 500/4L-IS if money is not a controlling issue, it'll cost you around $5500.00. I only bring this up because you have a pro kit so far so it looks to me like you're very serious about getting the best images of your ability.

If you'd like to keep it more modest, you really have only one choice IMO. The 400mm/5.6L. This lens is as sharp as Canon's big boys, of course not as fast and without stabilization. This isn't a huge disadvantage, you just have to keep shutter speeds up there a bit higher.

Just a note, I ruled out the 100-400 simply because you already have a great mid-tele zoom, and the 400mm prime blows it away for image quality and sharpness at 400mm. Many people consider this prime a true bargain in the Canon line.

How's that sound?

By the way, my best little friend and hunting buddy is named Randi also. She's a German Shorthair Pointer, and a total machine in the field, I try my best to keep up with her.

Can you hand hold 500/4f-IS? This lens sounds great! $5500 would not make the wife happy :GRIN: but she would get over it..

Nice looking shorthair!! :GRIN: She sure is having fun in the snow..

I'm obviously out of my league here but I'd like to ask a Q. :

how much degredation will you get with a 1.4TC on a 300 f2.8 taking pics at f4- 5.6 (with the apc sensor that would be essentially a 600 f4 lens)? I ask because I'm not sure I can justify both a 300 2.8 and a 500 lens right now....


thanks

They always get over it -- Easier to ask forgiveness than permission

Yes, I can handhold the 500/4. That's the primary reason I sold my 600/4IS. While I always try to use a tripod, there are times when that's not an option. No problem, bump the ISO a stop or so, keep it to 1/1000 and handhold. You wouldn't want to do this all day of course, but it's definitely doable for a short period of time.

I have to say, the 1DmkIII + 500/4L-IS is like cheating when it comes to wildlife shooting Almost too easy...

I have to say this, If I could only keep 1 lens out of my entire kit, it would be the 300/2.8L-IS. Image quality degradation with the 1.4xTC is almost undetectable. This is the only combination I can say this is the case. I have many large prints, 16"x24"+, in my home taken with this combination.

Here's a few with the 300/2.8 + 1.4xTC

Forgot to add, these are all wide open at f/4 also.

thanks! that's encouraging !

Come on up to Wyoming in the spring. We'll go through Yellowstone Nat'l Park, you can mount the 300/2.8L-IS and rip off 10gigs or so... see what you think. I guarantee you'll love the results.

Here is a photo of my hunting buddy General Beauregard :GRIN:

Fantastic image and great looking friend. That has to be the good ol' 5D + 24-70L with a nice bounce flash.

cool -- that's only about a 5 hour trip

I have a Sigma EX 300 2.8 I got in the mail a few days ago I'm trying out -- weather has been pretty crappy to put it through the paces though......

I am thinking its time for me make the wife not so happy with me once agen.. :GRIN:

All most 100% right! The lighting was from 2 Hensel Intega Pro 500watt mono lights. Spot on with the camera and lens!! :GRIN:

I can't say I've tried the Sigma, but have heard good reviews. Let us know what you think. If the images are anything short of spectacular, the Canon might be the way to go. I think Canon's 300/2.8L-IS is the best lens they make for it's intended purpose.

Nice! I've yet to get into a good set of studio lighting, but that's my next quest.

Here are some photos I have done with studio lighting..

That's truly awesome work Randy!!! Are they all 2 light setup's?

Yep just 2 500watt lights and a little photoshop

Almost all landscape and just starting to get into wildlife with some bird interest. I saw your prtrait work. Very nice!

If your really good you can do that on a monthly basis and live to tell the story. LOL

The Canon 300L 2.8 IS is definately on my must have list. The images I have seen from that lens with the Canon 1.4x are just stellar. Plus you have a lot more fexability than the 500L f4 IS, but then the 400DO is a mighty attractive package but the IQ just doesn't seem in the same league as either the 500 f4 IS or the 300 2.8. I just ordered the 100-400L IS so I'm keeping my fingers crossed for a nice sharp copy.

Thanks Rob,
I have a gazillion images still loaded in my colorspace that I need to process. I hope to try to work on my first HDR's this week.

Stetson -- You know, sometimes it seems easier for me to just blend 2 or 3 layers manually in Photoshop rather than blend them as a true HDR. I get better results usually that way too, more control. Of course, sometimes it's not practical where there are not clear cut lines of distinction in exposure.

Rob what do you think of this combo?
5D with 500mm f4 IS as my primary camera.
20D with my 70-200mm f2.8 and 1.4x extender secondary camera.
randy..

Randy - I think that sounds fantastic. The only downside, if one would like to call it that, is that your 20D set up will yield almost the same field of view.

20D + 200mm + 1.4x = 448mm focal length equivalent, compared to full frame.

5D + 500mm = 500mm of course.

Now the plus side, is that the 5D + 500mm/4L-IS will yield absolutely stunning images when you're not "reach limited". Image quality wise, that combo is basically the top of the chain.

When you do become reach limited, swap the 500mm onto the 20D and you will project many more pixels on the subject that way.

This is basically what I do, and it's the only reason for keeping around the 40D. Sometimes the 1.6 croppers pixel pitch/density is useful when I need maximum reach. Otherwise, I always use my 1DmkIII.

While I was in Jackson Hole this weekend I walked into many photography shops, and several of the pro photographers said they used that exact combo, 5D + 500/4.

You really can't do any better. Man, I'm excited for you... I need to go buy a new lens now too

Rob

Awesome If I get images half as good as yours it would be werth every penny! Will be going to Vail CO for some snow skiing in 6 weeks. Hope B&H has the lens in stock. Will be nice to have it on this trip. Thank you for all the great help on this Rob.. :GRIN:
randy..

What lens are you going to get? maybe 24-70 2.8?

C'mon now Randy, you should know I already have that lens , it's one of the first I got after converting to Canon. It's one of Canon's best.

I'm not too sure what to buy, my current line up is:

Long Primes --
500/4L IS
300/2.8L IS
180/3.5L Macro

Mid Primes --
85/1.2L Ser.II
35/1.4L

Zooms --
100-400/5.6L IS
70-200/4L IS
24-70/2.8L
16-35/2.8L Ser.II

What do you think the next lens should be? I'm thinking the 400/2.8L-IS Maybe the 135/2L? I've owned them both, and regret selling each of them.

looks like to me you need the 50/1.2L grins...

Yea, that's right... forgot about that one.

Hmmm 400/2.8L IS would be kick ass... :GRIN:

400DO f4 IS.

You my friend are a braver man than I

Rob I found u a new lens! :GRIN:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0610/06100101zeiss1700f4.asp

LOL Hell yeah, I'll put that thing to work. Now if I could just get some kind of adapter to work on Canon EOS Slr's. My poor 1DmkIII would look like a lens cap that happens to record images.

What the heck, while I got the checkbook out, I'll take two

Even has an LCD for some reason

My 100-400L arrived today. Push Pull takes a few seconds to used to but a pretty nice lens for the $$$. The rebate helped out a bit.