kerry_grim

There are records of Spoonbills from Ding Darling and Sanibel Island for this month. But I have no idea if they are or aren't not approachable for photos.

Ding Darling is part of the National Wildlife Refuge System administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, not part of National Park Service. But that brings up a whole new area where you can find information. I am not familiar with Florida but suspect there are numerous Nation Wildlife Refuges. They all maintain lists of wildlife.

You may want to try the American Birding Association Listerv for the area you are going to visit or possibly ask on the Listserv, but you need to join to be able to post questions. http://birding.aba.org Also (I would check here first) check the National Park Service for Florida. NPS websites usually have extensive information on wildlife: https://www.nps.gov/state/fl/index.htm

I am not sure it really matters what lens you use if your focus is not dead-on. Use live view and highest magnification for focusing. My preference is to include something other than just a moon, preferably something natural, but I really like Shun's moon photos, a lot more interesting than just the moon.

Laura's comments were excellent. I do think people should enjoy nature and wildlife on its own whether you get a shot or not. I don't feel the must-have need for photos so do not mind watching instead of pushing the animal to flee. Ask yourself "would I be there enjoying the wildlife if I did not have a camera?" If you are there only for the photos, maybe you should be doing something else. Don't let your camera be a crutch. Nature first, photos second.

They do look sharp and probably would be a little sharper with a tripod. But I think the main thing is the depth of field is very shallow at f2.8 and the lens may not be its sharpest at near maximum aperture either. Use a tripod and shoot f8. Don't necessarily believe the so called handheld rule that would suggest 1/100 second is acceptable for sharpness of an 85mm lens. Even 1/200 might not be enough. But you need a tripod to prove that to yourself. However, as suggested, lack of apparent sharpness may be in processing so you need to share that detail with us. Or, perhaps make the RAW file available and have someone process it to see the results. Sometimes my pictures do not look very sharp. It is likely the monitor because when I process to be a full screen background on my 21.5 monitor, much more detail is visible and they are extremely sharp.

I agree with Ed Avis 24 f1.4 and 35 f1.4 are great lenses, too big and expensive for use as a general purpose single focal length lens. The 24 f2.8 pancake is a much better selection. My choice, hands down would be the very excellent EF 28 f2.8 IS lens (with a crop camera). The IS is very useful, excellent quality lens and about one-third the cost of the two f1.4 lenses.

I have the 17-40. It is a good lens, but buying now, I would go to the 16-35 f4 without hesitation. Often, when carrying a minimum of gear (I use a 6d), I will carry the 24 2.8 IS and the 100 2.8 IS macro. I do find the IS very useful even for wide angle.

Have they been sharpened in post processing? Did you check your focus accuracy?

I believe you are saying...buying an older body as a spare. Then you have two old bodies. Seems it would be better to pony up to a new body you like and can afford and then consider the 7D as your back-up.

I recall Galen Rowell saying he could have used just a 24 and 85 for almost all his photos. He did adventure and climbing photography so that was appropriate to his situation. I often carry just a 24 and 100 macro both with IS and I would not do without IS. It does seem that the 24-105 would be an ideal range in one lens. Having returned from Olympic National Park, that would have been the perfect lens for scenics.

Here is what I have bookmarked. I am sure there are many others: http://www.insectidentification.org/ http://bugguide.net http://www.butterfliesandmoths.org/

I would look at the new Tamron lenses which appear to be excellent, a bit slower, but more compact than faster lenses and cost is very reasonable. One particular lens I am thinking of is: Tamron SP 35mm f/1.8 Di VC USD. See canon rumors.com for an excellent comparison wth the Canon 35 f2 IS lens. The Sigmas do excellent. They are excellent quality, but, as a result are much larger and more expensive. To me, even at f2...with IS...it is a fast lens. You really, really pay to get that maximum amount of light or minimum focus for a 1.4 lens. Fine if you need it, but with todays excellent lowlight cameras, i don't see it necessary. But, I speak only for myself. Your mileage may vary.

I would suggest going with a full frame body (lower-end full frame would be excellent) and open your world to a variety of prime lenses and zooms. Shoot RAW to get the most out of photos, particularly shadow and white balance. HDR may not be necessary. You can straighten crooked walls, doorways, windows, or buildings themselves in a post processing program such as Lightroom. Equally important would be a tripod, not only to allow you the sharpest photos but also to slow you down to carefully frame you photos.

Does it have a lens? You might be able to sell it to keh.com but it may not be worth the effort to pack it up and ship it.