matthijs

The bronica is not that good. Your 300x2 is better.

Check review sites if you doubt...

That 100/2.8 is a macro lens I presume.

If not you might want to add one.

Pretty happy with my Sigma 24/1.4 Art.

Haven't touched my 17-40/4L since I have it.

Nice wide open, very nice stopped down a little.

You can check my 2015 gallery for examples.

On depth of field: I often find that even f2.8 is too shallow.

Unless there's a good bit of distance between me and the subject.

I have no problem using a slightly slower macro lens for portraits.

Plus that adds a whole new use: macro.

Unless you really need the shutter speed. Then the 1.8 is better.

Read his first word...

(-:

Try creating the shot you want with the Pen.

If you succeed in that and you enjoy the process: switch.

If not: don't.

Whether switching is a good idea is 100% personal.

The short answer regarding AF: if you're not happy with a 60D and the camera is functioning correctly... 99 out of a 100 is

a matter of shooting technique.

Unless you're shooting F1 cars head on of course...

A 6D2 would probably have an incremental increase in AF quality. If any. The series is not a professional sports camera

and will never be.

But since most of us aren't pro sports togs, that's not a problem.

Maybe you could borrow or rent one?

(or buy a second hand 5D2? or D6?)

Some considerations...

Weight and size. (it adds up, especially if you have to carry on your back or along with other luggage.)

Budget and price. (budget is obvious, high price might have you worry about your gear when travelling)

Personal taste. (which focal lengths do you use most often at the moment? What is that multiplied by 1.6?)

That said, as an add on to my previous advice (17-40&50&100), while I think the most versatile short tele is the 100L

because of the macro ability, the speed and the IS, the 70-200/4L IS -which I also have- never disappoints. Every time I

use that lens I have a veritable slew of keepers. And I mean that in the artistic sense, because the technical quality of

both is great.

To confuse the issue:

17-40/4L, a 50 (your choice) and the 100/2.8L macro.

I could shoot the rest of my life with just these three.

Wide angle for when space is cramped and (city)scapes.

50 for low light, general purpose and "just bring one lens".

100 for details, portraits and short tele.

You see this is a very personal question...

The real cost of course is that after your first fast (prime) lens you'll want more lenses. Longer and fast.

(-:

I've used a 650 recently. (After lying in my closet for 10 years while I shot digital.)

Even after more than 25 years it still works great. Including usage with a new 100L IS.

Focussing is OK though sometimes you need to put the rectangle at right angles with a contrasty line to get good focus.

Recompose after and you're ready to shoot.

(Unless wide open at F1.2 of course in which case your subject will be out of focus...)

Zooming teleconverters.

Now I've seem it all...

Everyone has his own preference.

My combo of preference is a 17-40 plus a 100.

However I can perfectly well imagine someone who'd just have the 24-105.

In short, it depends.

I sincerely advice borrowing or renting both for a weekend before you decide.

Are you in a position to just try it?

Go out, take the shot you want to use a 400mm for, crop and post proces.

Judge for yourself whether that satisfies.

My experience is that it holds up very well.

But I never print large. I just use images for screens.

Depending on the purpose of your photography, the quality of the equipment, your qualities taking photographs and at

least as important your postprocessing skills... you need a better camera.

But my guess is you don't.

What is your purpose with your photographs?

Art, fine detail, business, product pjotography?

How good are you?

That said...

If you think a new body improves your confidence or it feels better in hand and you've got the money to spare... I'd say go

for it.

Just a bit of user experience...

I have 17-40L, 50/1.4, 100L, 70-200/4L IS and some simpler primes.

In my experience the 70-200/4L IS is the lens that always makes me happy when I see the results. I like all my lenses for

different reasons but it's the one that pleases me every time I take it out.

Having never used any of its 2.8 cousins I can give no other perspective.

I use them on a 5D-ii.

Light?

Distance?

Framing?

Size of group?

Environmental?

Emphasis on the subject?

Without info I'd say:

10-22

17-55

28/2.8

50/1.2 or 1.4 or 1.8

70-200/2.8 or 4

100/2 or 2.8

135/2

200/2 or 2.8

300/2.8

(-:

For most situations you may want to skip Canon and go Sigma 50-150 or Tokina 50-135.

But I'd narrow the scope a little if I were you that way you could choose a more optimized lens.

Dave, if I read correctly you expect a fourfold improvement, not a four stop improvement.

I think that's a reasonable expectation, yielding good results at ISO 3200 and with some skill/luck 6400.

<p>Blurring the thing that most people would think of as the subject. Preferably a famous landmark (I can't find an example right now, not too many shot recently...) but any subject matter will do.<br>

<a href="/photo/11770091">Sample one</a><br>

<a href="/photo/17304534">Sample two</a><br>

<a href="/photo/13165455">Sample three</a></p>

<p> </p>

Lack of color tends to be a post processing issue. Have you tried tweaking your pictures in Canon's DPP software? Are

you shooting RAW?

Could you post a typical image that you're not happy with?

Maybe a ring flash so it would help your macro work as well?

Not sure how useful it would be for the wedding though, someone with related experience should answer that.

On the minus side the 70-200/4 is less wide at the short end and less tele at the long end than your 55-250.

On the plus side it's the lens I have (f4 IS) that always gives me good looking pictures. I also have a wide L zoom, a

100mm L macro and several non-L primes and non have the succes rate of this lens. All in my experience using my style

of course. (Have a look at my portfolio to give you an idea.)

It's bigger than what you're used to but very managable.

The best thing of course is to try it out by borrowing or renting.

I only use DPP.

For RAW conversion, simple PP (WB, rotation, cropping, contrast and B&W conversions).

That's enough for me, conservative editing and no fuss.

The results look good to me.

I'm in no way a professional but have a few decades of shooting behind me.