[joefish]

So this thread is more of a discussion about switching to full frame rather than "I have a question about X" (and I hope I've put the thread in the right place).

I've been considering the switch to full frame for a while, but have realised that apart from the obvious cost of a full frame camera itself, the actual cost for me will be much higher. Here's why:

My current gear:
40D with battery pack
18-55 Kit lens (leftover from 350D)
50mm 1.8
70-200L 2.8 IS

If I go full frame (or to any camera that doesn't support EF-S), then I'll immediately have a useless 18-55. Now, it isn't the best lens, and I've been wanting to replace it for a while anyway...

And, while if I switched to full frame I'd probably keep my 50mm 1.8 (it was relatively cheap), it will probably need to be replaced with an 85mm 1.8 to achieve a similar focal length for portraits.

And then of course, my 70-200 won't give me anywhere near the same long-range I get from it on my 40D. (112-320mm).

And here are the costings for lens replacements (in USD):
24-70mm 2.8 = $1139 (yeah, not quite the same class as the 18-55mm, but I'd like the 2.8)
85mm 1.8 = $385
300mm 2.8 = $3,899

All of this on top of the cost for a full frame body!

A 1.3CF body is an option, but still relatively expensive and I would want at least some new lenses.

How have other people handled the transition to full frame? Is it really worth it? Bearing in mind that I mostly do event photography for the charity I work for (and so don't get paid extra for it), it's probably true that I don't have a need for full frame gear, but more a want...

(For the record, in case anyone thinks I'm rich - I don't have anywhere near the money needed to do this anyway, so this is simply a mental exercise for the moment).