Lens vs. Body

[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.