Hahaha I'm not super rich at all.

I'm hoping a full-frame camera comes out at about $1400-ish or less for the camera by itself. Currently the Nikon D600 and Canon 6D are about $1699.99, and can be had at about $1600 on a deal brand new.

I keep myself concerned with resale value of things.

In hind-sight I do wish I got the Canon 6D + 24-105mm lens. Its ISO performance is stellar, so the lens being f4.0 ends up being like on my camera at a constant f2.8. But I would've spend a fair bit of cash extra that route.

Quite happy with the results I'm getting now.

This post was edited by Canadian_Man on Jul 8 2013 07:45pm

woah just saw the price of the canon 6D.
1899.99 on futureshop.ca Thats pretty damn nice for a Full frame

edit: The one i posted earlier were from nikon.ca Maybe some reseller are making deals on it

This post was edited by Deibu on Jul 8 2013 09:05pm

Yeah, pretty good price overall.

I've decided I won't get the 70-300mm after all. I really do like the idea of it, and maybe one day I'll go for a 70-300 (and to be honest it'll probably be in that aperture range), but likely once I've upgraded to a camera that handles higher ISO settings a little better to compensate.

I think I'll set my sights on a 50mm and 85mm in the non-DX format, as well as possibly a constnat f2.8 17-50mm... depending...

Basically when my bday rolls around (I'm 23 but my parents are nice), if I'm feeling limited by the 16-85, then I'll ask for a 17-50 or an 85mm 1.8G... and then I'll sell the 16-85mm and buy whichever one of those two I don't already have. *ASSUMING* I actually want all that stuff at that point hahaha.

I love tech too much.

This post was edited by Canadian_Man on Jul 8 2013 09:19pm

Make sure if you get a 70-300 on the fullframe that it dont make any vignetting (If using nikon)
-canon just wont fit anyway-

By the way with the 17-50mm f2.8 you wont need the 50mm 1.8 at all
believe me mine is getting dusty on my computer speaker ahah

You don't miss the bokeh from the difference from f1.8 to f2.8?

Do you think the 17-50 would replace the 35mm 1.8G as well? I really enjoy the lens.

Makes me wonder if I had a 17-50 what I'd have as my telephoto. Is there a 50-200 lens that has a fixed aperture?

People dont buy low fstop for the bokeh, They buy it only to be able to shoot in low light without ruining the picture with motion blur or noise
Because with a wide lens = Hard to get bokeh.
with a zoom lens (200mm for example) will give you bokeh kinda high in the fstop.
it always depends how close is your subject (your focus point) - The closer you focus, the more blurry your background will get- <- you gotta understand that lenses have a minimum focus distance tho

edit: but yes low fstop helps your Bokeh. but still id rather spend the 50mm 1.8 money on another lens than this one when you already use a 17-50mm f2.8
I never touch my 50mm 1.8 because of that. I hate moving just to get composition right (even worst with a heavy tripod lol)

This post was edited by Deibu on Jul 8 2013 09:36pm

See that very reason makes me like the idea of picking up the 70-300mm. Pleasant bokeh, huge zoom range, and I usually shoot during daylight anyway = excellent overall.

The 16-85mm just leaves me stumped. I did so much research on it. I love the lens, but my 35mm 1.8G puts it to shame.

The good thing about prime lenses is the optics quality.
Since you never move the optics by zooming, the quality remains the same.
While zooms can decrease in quality (Even if not by much. it's possible)

But using primes is a matter of choice. If i was doing portraits id use a prime lens (if i had anything else than the 50mm actually)
But zoom = really amazing for everyday stuff.

So maybe I'll save for a 70-200mm f2.8 that is compatible with full-frame. That'll cost me $1200 on sale. Would make sense over a 70-300mm. It's not something I'm going to shell out any time soon for, but I'll skip on the 70-300.

And I'll get something at constant f2.8 up to 50 or so that is compatible with full-frame at some point. I'm considering that option if I decide to sell the 16-85. The 17-50 + 35mm 1.8 + 85mm 1.8 might be nice to have all together. I don't know yet though, the 16-85 might suit my needs once I've taken enough shots. So far the 16-85 has let me down a tad bit, with the 35 really taking most of the shots I'm keeping at the moment.

the 70-200mm f2.8 is used by most of the professionnal portrait photographers really nice lens