I am very happy with my 40D but I'd really like to get a full frame camera for portrait work. The 5D is extremely tempting, I'm just looking around for a good deal on one. I'd love to use a 1Ds mkII (or even a mkIII) but I don't see any way I can afford one. I like the fact that the 5D layout is similar to the 40D so it should be easy to get used to using.

I must confess that a 16-35 f2.8 would be nice, but I think the 17-40 f4 would have to do for a while at least. I love the 28-70 f2.8 and wouldn't get rid of it, it's an amazing lens. I'm also a big fan of the 70-200 f4, it's so nice to shot with handheld, the f2.8 IS version is just to much of a beast. I've just got a 300 f4 IS which I think could be fun for portraits. The 50 f1.4 is a definite possibility (I already have the Sigma 105 f2.8 macro) another one for the future.

I definitely won't be selling the 40D (well I have two so I guess one could go), I like the speed and high ISO performance for bird photography.

And surely you have at least two of EX580 or are they in wish list too?
IMO a body from two digits D (i.e. 20,30,40,50) or 5D plus 28-70 f2.8 L and an EX580 II (or if budget is tight, EX550) are all that any Canophilic photographer needs to complete his art of showing the best pictures to others and especially covering a wedding or likewise.

A 300 f4 IS is absolutely not needed for portrait unless you are talking of some sort of candid shooting. Well for birding etc, Please do yourself a favor and don't settle for anything less than a 100-400L even thought this L has the nasty fame of being a dirt sucker! If too serious and then with fat wallet, then you may want to consider 300 L 2.8 plus a TC 2x.

I have one EX580II and use an old Sigma as a second flash (plan to change this in the future), for me two bodies are a must. I've done a few weddings and found that keeping the 28-70 f2.8 bolted to one body and a 70-200 f4 on the other was ideal (I liked the extra reach for candid shots). For birding I love shooting with two bodies, one on the long lens (500 f4) and another on a short lens for flight shots (400 f5.6) or the macro.

I bought the 300 f4 for photographing butterflies and using at a local feeding station, it's also good for candid shots of my kids. I did have a 100-400 for a while but let it go and got the 400 f5.6 instead, for some reason I never got on with the zoom.

To carry on the thread,i'd go with 2 new 5d MK 1 bodies/bg-e4 grips,ef 17-40L,Sigma 24-70 EX,one of the sharpest lens about,i have one,if you dont believe how sharp they are look at some of my portraits,and finally a sigma 70-200 ex,for candids,if you send me your email i'll forward wedding material taken with both Sigma's,i've recently been using ex580 mk2 but i'm going to get my hammerhead Metz cl-4's out of the loft as they blow away any flagship Canon,ATB,Mart.

Thanks for all the advice. I'd just about decided that I was going to go for a 5D but have just been offered a good deal on an excellent condition, low use 1Ds mkII. The mkII will cost ~£500 more than a 5D, so I'd have to sell a couple of bits to get it...

I really want to go for the mkII (I've always fancied using one) but am just not sure that my use will justify the extra spend. I guess what I want to know, is if money wasn't an issue would you go for a 5D or a 1Ds mkII?

I dont think you'll be disappointed with the quality of the 1DsII Peter - I wouldnt be parted from mine. The handling may take a bit of getting used to, after the lighter smaller bodies you have been using, but I find the size and weight work well for me when hand-holding, even with the big lenses.

Well by trading in an old lens the deal on the mkII was irresistable... and you're right I wasn't disapointed. It's a big solid camera which delivers amazing images, feels odd when using the 40D now. The controls are less straight forward that the 40Ds that I am used to, but I'm starting to get to grips with it.

I do weddings as well, presently I am working with a 30D and Rebel XSi as backup. I am looking at getting the 5D Mk II as I have all FF lenses. I personaly think the glass you use is the most important thing to consider; you can have the best camera with a bad lens and your images are sure to be poor and I am sure you aer well aware of this fact. the lenses you have are fine, I use the 17-40 and love it, I also have a 85mm f/1.8 which I can't recomend as I am very disapointed with this lens performance in every respect (slow and inacurate focus, soft images) I use a Sigma 70mm f/2.8 prime which is perfect; see what Popular Photography Magazine has to say about the Sigma.....

See the link to see what Popular Photography Magazine has to say......."CONCLUSION: With a lens like this, Sigma makes it difficult for us to sound objective. In practical terms, it's faultless"

Get one!!!

You can see the link here..... http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses...-macro-af.html