[Arthur Macmillan]

Wim, I'm so sorry not to have seen your interesting reply until now.  The fact that I actually understand your post pretty well, even if I don't have as much actual expertise makes me think I might know more than I realized...on some level...I simply have been very slow to commit to new things.  As to liking how a macro lens renders...It is really hard to quantify sometimes.  My first 1:1 macro lens was the Tamron SP 90 f/2.8 Di AF Macro 1:1.  I thought it was the best lens in the world!  And now it is long since gone so I have no way to check.  If you ever saw this lens (which extended quite a bit at macro distances) you'll never forget how deeply recessed the front element was.  The very rear element was stationary.  It was a nice design because the lens was well protected an never needed the hood.  The downside was being so deeply recessed meant the pseudo-hood got almost as close to the subject as my EF-S 60mm f/2.8 USM 1:1 macro.  So without a doubt it was harder to use.  But the photos seemed beautiful.  Not having the benefit of a direct comparison on a modern camera who can say.  But I loved it.


But...from the sound of it, you may also like the extremely shallow depth of field that has been my nemesis for capturing insect macros.  You did get my attention with that bit about getting the 100-400L the Mark ii, you mean?  I want that one very much.  with a close up attachment it should do very decent macros.  The mark original 100-400L did pretty well.  Judging, as usual, from pictures taken by other people, since I never had the lens.


@ Susan:  Two things seem clear to me.  1) I'll never be able to give up my 70D.  (2) Most people don't seem to want to come out and say it, but I really think most people would want a FF, and the 6D seems to be a good choice.  I think it will be fascinating to compare the results I get from the two.  Especially since  I have a large number of lenses the two cameras can share!