Lens vs. Body

[RonG]

I am in an interesting position. I need some thought on whether tis better to upgrade a camera body or get a new lens. I currently have a Canon 40D and a Canon 1D which I bought used. I had originally intended to get a Canon 100-400mm zoom for Baseball, Soccer, Football, Lacrosse etc. but after getting the old 1D(and it is awsome)I'm thinking maybe getting a used 1D Mark II or IIn might be a better Idea. I currently have a 17-55mm EF-S IS, 70-200mm F4 L and F2.8 L IS, Sigma 50mm F1.4. So how about it. Upgrade to a Mark II or IIn or get the Lens. Any Thoughts would be appreciated

[Jessica Robinson]

I'll share advice that was given to me - upgrade your lens. Camera bodies update fairly frequently, which could work the price down more in your favor if you are eyeing a used body. The lens, however, stay pretty constant and hold their value better over time. I think the combination of your 40D with the 100-400mm would be great for the outdoor sports you suggested. I use my 20D for a lot of action stuff and get great results.


I guess part of the question is also why you want to upgrade the body - more MP, better autofocus, ISO performance? My thought, however, is that if you've got a great lineup of lens and you need to shoot an event that requires a more sophisticated camera - rent one for that event! Depending on your area, you may be able to rent the body pretty cheaply (one in my area, for instance, will rent out bodies and lenses for a 3 day period if you are local).


Just my thoughts. Be curious to see what others think. :)

[Sinh Nhut Nguyen]

I agree with Jessica, always go for the lens first.

[Jon Ruyle]

I vote lens :)


In five years, you'll probably still have the lens. But you'll likely be using a body that hasn't been introduced yet.

[Dallasphotog]

I vote lens as well. I own an XT, an XTi and a 1DMKII. Without looking at the EXIF data or the file naming, I never know which body I was using to take particular shot. I can almost always tell the lens from aglance. My EF70-200mm F/2.8 L IS USM and my EF24-70MM F/2.8 L USM don't leave any doubt.Lens, lens,lens!


I don't think you'll find the1DMKII or the 1DMKIIN a big upgrade over your 40D. You will notice the little bitty LCD screen though!

[Dann Thombs]

The 40D is still relatively new, so another vote for a lens.

[Rob Gardner]

Lemme get this straight...you have the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS? I'd ditch the 1D (+$500), get the 2X II extender (-$300) for the 70-200 2.8 (making the need for the 100-400 redundant) and get the 1D Mk II used (-$1100) for net expenditure of $900. You get what is possibly the best camera for the money IMHO- the 1D Mk II *and* you have up to 400mm L IS at f/5.6. Best of both worlds in my book....

[Jon Ruyle]

Not to be argumentative, but I don't think 70-200 f/2.8 + 2x extender exactly makes the 100-400 redundant... I in fact own a 70-200 f/2.8 IS and a 2x extender, but I'd still love to have a 100-400. Maybe I'm kidding myself, but I would expect the 100-400 to focus much faster and have noticibly better iq than the 70-200 + 2x combination.

[HiFiGuy1]

Expounding on the two most recent posts, I agree that the IQ of the 70-200 f/2.8 + 2x is probably not on par with the 100-400 native. So I would ditch the 1D, as Rob suggests, and then buy a 100-400. Then your net cost would only be about $600. Even less out of pocket, and a tremendous pairing with the 40D, I would think.


As a matter of fact, I think I may do that with my next lens purchase. I was seriously leaning towards a macro, but I've been pretty happy with my flower pics, etc., with my 28-135, and I yearn for the focal length that can get after some wildlife. I will also be getting a 1.4x, just in case.


My ultimate goal is to have a 24-105 and a 100-400 to go with my 17-40, and add a 1-series body. That will effectively cover everything from 17-560 with a 1.4x. I will probably do with my 28-135 for now but my next body will hopefully come with a 24-105L kit lens, so I can retire the 28-135. To be most frugal,I don't want to buy that lens by itself.

[RonG]

Guys and Ladies,


I recently picked up that old 1D and I've got to tell you, for shooting basketball with a flash sync at 1/500 it is sweet. The autofocus servo is better than my 40D which is why I'm in this quandry. I shoot my 70-200mm with a 1.4 converter and frankly my lowly 70-200mm f4 with converter looks better than my 2.8 at the same 5.6 aperture. F4 with the 70-200mm and 1.4 converter is not sharp and loses a lot of contrast. I know logically I should get the 100-400mm lens vs. the 1D markII but the quality of the 1D is why I'm torn. Besides with the 1D I chimp less.

[HiFiGuy1]

Tough call, then, to be honest. I understand your quandry. I'd still get the lens,even if you have to wait to get a newer 1D Mark II for a while. I am glad to know about the 70-200 f/4 + 1.4x is as sharp as the 70-200 f/2.8 at the same equivalent aperture. I have been lusting after a 70-200 f/2.8, but everything I've read leads me to think that if I'm not shooting AT f/2.8, I'm better off with the f/4.


What is "chimping"? Sorry for the newb question, but after all, that is what I am! A newb, that is. [:)]

[Rob Gardner]

How dare you call the original masterpiece that goes by the name of 1D "old"?? It's still a great camera, only eclipsed by its bigger brethren. I'm still not convinced that the 100-400 is the way to go - maybe I had a bad copy, but I got nothing better than "good" out of that lens. If you can shoot indoor basketball with a flash (I'm not allowed) I would TOTALLY do exactly what you are doing with the 70-200 f/4 for several reasons:


1. It's physically faster in the AF department (I attribute this to a lower total mass of glass to move and rotate vs. the f/2.8) - I always got more keepers from games with the f/4.


2. It's clearly sharper, w/ or w/o the converter - you will get sharper results more consistently. A friend that shoots for ESPN and covers NFL confirms this. He always goes for the f/4 over the f/2.8.


3. You already own it!


That will leave you change to upgrade to the 1D Mk II - it really is worth it! It's everything you loved about the 1D with all the fixes (more MP, MUCH less noise at ISO 400 and up).


Ask yourself this question: Do you need better results than what the f/4 and 1.4TC already gives you? - if not, then you already have the lens you need.

[RonG]

Chimping is when you look at the great image you've taken on your big 3" screenand make noises like a chimpanze or Tim Taylor. This is immediately followed by missing the best action of a game cause you were'nt paying attention.

[RonG]

Many apologies, the 1D "Classic". I actually want the 100-400 for Football, Lacrosse, Field Hockey, Soccer and Surfing. I use the 70-200 2.8 on my 40D with available light for basketball and in that regard as well as available light night time football and soccer it's great.

[SupraSonic]

What body i have;


1D MKII ; Lens used =135 L F2 (for indoor & Outdoorsports) EF300 F4 IS L (for outdoor for football i.e. soccer) night or day,MotoGp and JGTC. EF 50 F1.4 USM and EF 20 F2.8 USM


1Ds MKIII Lens used=EF17-40 F4 L

[Rob Gardner]

SupraSonic -


Great choices! A really balanced lens/body setup for your needs! So what's your call - the 1D Mk II or the 100-400 lens?

[SupraSonic]

1d MK II with EF100-400 F5.6 is good combi good for outdoor but indoorit's lacking but if there is enough light it is a good weapon too.Nowadays a rarely used this because of i have the ultimate combiwith 1D MkII = EF300F4 IS L.

[SupraSonic]

Thankz Rob, what do you have?[;)]

[ShutterbugJohan]

Chimping is when you look at the great image you've taken on your big 3" screenand make noises like a chimpanze or Tim Taylor. This is immediately followed by missing the best action of a game cause you were'nt paying attention.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





Precisely! LOL I just wish my LCD showed the exposure accurately...