Yep another one of those threads.... Help me spend my money!

[Skyline On Fire]

OK!

I have a budget. I need advice.

First off. I can spend up to 5000 pounds. But id like to keep it significantly below that if possible. For this, I want a body, and a couple of lenses. Not my first DSLR or anything, just came into money I never expected to come into, so decided to splash out.

I shoot wildlife, conceptual stuff, sport, basically everything. I want a long lens, something in the range of 200 plus would be ideal but Il get to that later. I also want a shorter lens, something around 18-125. No primes, I already have 2.

Now.... for my longer lens. I singled out 2, what do you think?

Canon L series 100 - 400 IS USM

or

Canon L series 70 - 200 f4 IS USM

I've heard pros and cons on both, but looking to more experienced photographers to help me out with these decisions. I want the extra zoom the 100-400 gives, but I've heard different things on its quality compared to the 70-200 etc... So yeah. Advice if possible!

As for the shorter lens, I was thinking the Canon EF 17-40mm F4 L Lens. Good choice?

Thanks in advance guys.

 

[HoppyUK]

On crop format, I would go 7D, 10-22, 17-55 2.8, 70-200L 4 IS, 100-400L. That's what I had apart from the 7D (had 40D). Totally excellent.

I then swapped to full frame and now have 5D2, 17-40L, 24-105L, 70-200L 4 IS, 1.4x telecon. Even better I sold the 100-400L because I hardly ever used it and it's a big lump, but wish I hadn't really. The 70-200 with 1.4x matches the 100-400L up to 280mm - see here http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=1 You can load up any number of different lens combinations there and compare them directly.

If you want the reach, the 100-400L beats pretty much everything apart from the expensive f/2.8 primes. You could get either outfit for your £5k. The difference between them is basically reach/action (7D) vs image quality (5D2).

 

[Skyline On Fire]

On crop format, I would go 7D, 10-22, 17-55 2.8, 70-200L 4 IS, 100-400L. That's what I had apart from the 7D (had 40D). Totally excellent.

I then swapped to full frame and now have 5D2, 17-40L, 24-105L, 70-200L 4 IS, 1.4x telecon. Even better I sold the 100-400L because I hardly ever used it and it's a big lump, but wish I hadn't really. The 70-200 with 1.4x matches the 100-400L up to 280mm - see here http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=1 You can load up any number of different lens combinations there and compare them directly.

If you want the reach, the 100-400L beats pretty much everything apart from the expensive f/2.8 primes. You could get either outfit for your £5k. The difference between them is basically reach/action (7D) vs image quality (5D2).

Brilliant, thanks for the advice and that website too.

I had a go on the 17-55 2.8 today, loved it. Definitely going for that over the 17-40 f4 L series without IS, just a far more capable lens IMO.