Buy Lens or Save for new Body?

[hotsecretary]

I'm only asking about the difference in the 70-200 as the price difference here in Canada is ~700$ to go from the 4 to the 2.8 IS


And I'm trying to stay away from EF-S lens as I'd rather not invest ~$1,000 in a lens I wouldn't really use if I upgrade (which I plan to do) to a FF body in the future. So I'm merely looking for personal opinions on some of the Wide Angel EF lens and the Zoom Lens such as 70-200 as I've heard many good things about this Lens for it's versatility. And more curious if it's just better to wait a month or so extra to get the 2.8 IS instead of buying possibly the 4L non IS and then upgrading later and being stuck with the job of selling the 4L.



I'm all for spending the bit more $$ up front if it's going to be worth while in the end. I'd rather pay more, then to pay more in the end anyways


As for the Flash, that's a for sure upgrade (next week most likely).. after taking a few shots in low light in a Night Club.. I quickly realized you need a real flash.


I'm more shopping for the future and want to spend my $$ wisely, instead of re-spending.

[peety3]

And I'm trying to stay away from EF-S lens as I'd rather not invest ~$1,000 in a lens I wouldn't really use if I upgrade (which I plan to do) to a FF body in the future.


I'm more shopping for the future and want to spend my $ wisely, instead of re-spending.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

I don't know Canadian prices, only US. But here's the deal (in USD): you can spend $700 on the EF-S 10-22, which is a GREAT little lens, and have coverage of the 16-35mm effective focal length range. Or, you can spend $2700 on the 5D Mark II and $1400 on the 16-35/2.8II lens to get the same range. That's a $3400 difference on a $700 purchase.


And when the time comes to upgrade your camera, if you sell the camera, you can sell the lens with it and make an attractive package with it. Or, I'd say the smarter choice is to keep the 40D, just in case the new camera has to go back to Canon for repairs or service bulletins; if you're keeping the camera, I'd sure want to keep the 10-22 as a safety (unless I was rich enough to get the 14/2.8 prime, but even then there's a loss of range).

[hotsecretary]

Thanks again everyone for your opinions... I'm in the process of selling my EF-S lens and most likely going to grab the 70-200 2.8 IS.



Then later in the year grab another walk around Lens and possibly a 50mm 1.4 and then think about the 5DII next year or maybe an early X-mas present.. depends when I get that extra cash my lil brother owes me

[BES]

How funny, i have same dilemas...


I have 40D, 70-200 f/4 IS, 50mmm1.4, currently intending on selling 17-85mm IS for something wider and not sure which way to go...FF compatibility of 16-35L or 10-22mm.


I think i will rent 10-22 for few times. I tried 16-35 and loved it, but seems not that wide, however...it may force me to go for that FF faster.


But if I like 10-22, then I just may wait for a bit.


Good luck with your decision []


Bernata

[Paulski]

Hotsecretary.


Buy a lens.. The 40D is excellant, i have recently bought one as an upgrade from a 350D/rebel and i'm really impressed withit. I have just this week boughta 70-200mmF4 IS.WOW!The pictures I'm getting with this lens of my daughter (6months old)are nothing but fantastic and in low light its not a problem handheld with the IS. I also have a 28-135mm IS which (in my opinion) is quite a good walk about lens for my purposes.


Enjoy you renewed interest:-)





Paul

[peety3]

But I've thinking more and more about the future, I think my next logical purchase is a real Flash.

Very good choice. You can't always use flash (sometimes it's too weak to be useful, sometimes it's inappropriate), but it'll make a big impact to your pictures.

Now here's the next question... I've been thinking about getting new Lens, most likely a Wide Angle, Zoom (70-200) most likely and possibly replacing one day the walk around lens with something expensive one day like a 24-70.

I have the 24-105. I've rented the 24-70. I love the 24-70. But to be honest, I'm not in a big rush to get it. Get a good wide-angle lens, a good telephoto lens, and use your 50mm to fill the gap (if you ever need to). Maybe bump up to the 50/1.4.

But I feel with my camera I'd be losing out if I bought any of the above and stuck them on the 40D as it's a 1.6x body versus a FF body.

Why? You can get a 40D and the EF-S 10-22 for less than a 5D Mark II, and you'd then still have to buy a 16-35mm lens for the 5D2 after that!.

So in your opinion(s) would you save for something like a 5D Mark II or start purchasing the Lens one by one?

Buy lenses. Buy more lenses. Maybe rent some lenses along the way, to help shape your purchase decisions.


And think about what lenses you'll have in 3-5 years. Sometimes it's tough to get from here to there on a direct path, but it can be good to think about it. Example: my girlfriend has a 40D with the kit 28-135 lens. I have two (mismatched) bodies, the 16-35, 24-105, 50/1.8, and 70-200/2.8IS. I'm a nice guy and share. On a recent event, we weren't able to share, so we rented, and she ended up with the EF-S 10-22, my 24-105, and the 70-200/4IS (along with a 50D body). She was VERY happy with the results. Another example: I started with the 24-105 (oh, and the Rebel kit lens...). I've since added the 70-200/2.8IS and 16-35. For that same event, I rented the 24-70 to fill in my gap. I shot with two cameras, and in the end the 16-35 and 70-200 combo did a majority of the work. (Related: my new "opinion" on the 24-70 vs. 24-105 debate is the 24-105 is great if it's your only lens, while the 24-70 is phenomenal if you have others to go around it.)