The Cost of Switching to Full Frame

[joefish]

Re: 17-40 vs 16-35: I'm currently debating with myself which one of these I'd rather buy. Yes, to have the 16-35 would be nice, but it's more expensive. The 17-40 doesn't quite produce the same quality shots on a full frame body.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx

And of course f2.8 vs f4.

Yep, I agree with the statement about the flash; I already own a 580exII, it was a recent upgrade form the 420ex.

For the record, I'm not disappointed at all with my 40D, it's a great camera. I'm just trying to think how I can plan my future upgrade path. As the last touched on, I'd rather keep the 40D and have some nice lenses, than a FF body with only one or two lenses.

[Headshotzx]

Canon's f/2.8 Zoom Trinity:
16-35
24-70
70-200

You can't go wrong with that. It's expensive as heck, but it's well worth it.

OR you could go with the f/4 trinity (you have a 70-200 2.8, so dont worry)
17-40
24-105
70-200

OR you could go with prime lineup (which is troublesome and expensive as heck, but is well worth it if you can afford :P)

24L
35L
50L
85L
135L
200L
300L (f/4 is enough unless you shoot sports IMHO)