///M5

Because you'll confuse something along the way and it'll happen.

We have similar needs, but my body is worse than yours. I figure the 70d/7dm2 and a f4 might buy the same improvement you seek for similar dough. Other lenses get better then too. Or of course a used 2.8 V1

The big deal for me is that it isn't an everyday lens so you have to carry it. It almost requires its own bag because it is so big where the f4 is teeny feeling in comparison.And yes you fucker I am trying to rationalize saving some money. HA! Yeah, saving money is good. For me the 2.8 buys me the ISO that I could get with a 5Dmkii. So once again, for the extra few clams it is worth it. You saw how close my little stupid t4i is in quality to the big FF cameras. Buying better glass in this case makes my body relevant for more years. As another bonus, I don't know if you care, but the new 2.8 works with the new extenders faster/better. So there again spending a little bit more buys me more over time. If I have learned anything from your preaching it's about buying the best in the things you will hold onto and going less on the parts that change. 1.5 pounds is a big deal, but an inch longer and .5 thicker isn't anything. I won't buy that rationalization buddy! I'll let my wife worry about the inch longer and thicker

Nice, so you post a picture.

At least the 70-200, 11-16, and 17-55 share the same filters

Glad I lent you the speedlight, sorry for spending your dough

The big deal for me is that it isn't an everyday lens so you have to carry it. It almost requires its own bag because it is so big where the f4 is teeny feeling in comparison. And yes you fucker I am trying to rationalize saving some money.

How shady is buying something like this? http://minneapolis.craigslist.org/hnp/mob/3872957039.html My wife is going to kill me if I don't get her a cell phone, but finding what I feel is an honest busness to flash a swappa S3 isn't easy. Doing myself I don't want to learn.

Ha, don't try them side by side unless you want to spend $2k on the VII.

The other thing the vii has is a panning IS mode. If you ever used IS while panning, you know it doesn't work out so well. The new ii disables horizontal IS so you can pan and still stop vertical vibration buying you more stoppy stoppy. It has less lens flare etc etc etc. Better elements, blah blah blah. I will try both the vi and the vii side by side and make my decision. Is IS even helpful while panning? Normally you pan for fast objects which require a faster shutter defeating any advantage IS would give. I am sure I have overlooked something major.

Playing with my 50 didn't it make you want to step back a few feet?

I just don't want to carry that big ass 2.8

Which yes I realize isn't needed

In particular in sharpness

IQ is better on the 4 though.

And I am talking 70-200 with IS and 2.8. My 135 mm has IS and it didn't fix it. I remembered again. Can't get the fact that there was a 3 stop IS V1 before the 4 stop IS V2.

Maybe it is overkill. But I have needed several stops more light than my f5. And if you get the chance to mess with the 70-200 2.8 you will see. 70 on a cropped sounds long for portraits but the 130-180 is one of the most beloved portrait and headshot lenses in the studio. I have lost shots at 2 once in a lifetime events because of poor lighting. And my lens didn't open up enough. Seeing as the 70-200 is only slightly more money but has way better IS, and build quality and I also do more action shots than portraits it kills 2 birds. Also be fun when I go shoot my busy racing his bike. Shit, again I forget that V1 has IS.

Can handhold the non-IS to about 1/150th of a second (at the short end, need faster shutter on the long but we are talking about low light portraits). To capture the same light with the f4 you'd need 1/75th of a second. That with IS can be done and even a human subject moving pretty quick won't get too far then. Obviously you can slow it down even beyond that with the f4. If you were comparing the IS II 2.8 then obviously that kicks ass on the 4, but for my use I think the 4 will be more useful.

70-200 f4 IS will take better low light pics than the 70-200 2.8 non-IS as long as the subject is somewhat non-moving

Yeah, I want the 2.8 too but for the dollar I think I'll end up with the 4.0.

I actually don't understand your desire for the 70-200 2.8 V1 vs just getting the 4.0 with IS. If you are shooting birds in flight or super fast action ok, but otherwise I think the smaller unit has way too many advantages.

Add a 2x extender and we could have some fun on my lake

Matt you really need the 200-400 f4 IS not the 70-200

ALthough my idea of peeping is to look at 100% to see what artifacts and focus issues I have

And when I do I realize how bad I am with the camera.