robert_turner5

<p>I have a 24-70 f2.8/II, funded by selling my 35/1.4L and the 24/1.4L II. For my needs the 24-70 is the smart choice, but both of those primes (as you know) have a special IQ that is sort of like your first sweetheart. You are happy with the current situation, but you fondly remember something that was really cool. I'd keep one of those if I were you. Sort of a compromise? <br> Incidentally, is the Sigma ART up to Canon L par in your book? I know it's reputation is very good, just wonder what you think. </p>

<p>Isn't the obvious answer "both"? ;-)</p> <p> </p>

<p>you would be doing your friend a GREAT favor by not advocating either lens. There are far superior inexpensive options out there.</p>

<p>I'd recommend renting a EF 17-40 f4.0L. For the money it is a very pleasing performer, absolutely reliable. I've never missed larger apertures, and I sold a 16-35 f2.8/L II prior to trying this lens.</p>

<p>as silly as this may sound, I think one of the best advantages to the II is the MUCH improved hood!</p>

<p>Doesn't this (from J.W.'s link) answer the WiFi question?<br> "A USB 3.0 terminal is available for expedited transfer speeds between the camera and a computer or the optional WFT-E7 (Version 2) for Wi-Fi connectivity."</p>

<p>EOS 1s are relatively small, fast focussing, and nearly indestructible cameras with great viewfinders. They come cheap these days. I've got one in great working order I'd part with for a song if you are interested.</p>

<p>Not the best rig for birds in flight... ;-)</p>