$5k to spend; 1 Series Body or long lens?

[Sketcher]

Say you’re an obsessive hobbyist and own the following gear:

:10D w/BG-ED3
:50 1.8 MKII
:17-40 f/4L
:28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS
:70-200 f/2.8L IS
:1.4x TC

You plan on spending approx. $5,000.00 on camera 'stuff' this time next year. Do you spend it on a Pro camera body or do you add some Image Stabilized length to your lens collection?
(available info intentionally vague)

Canon gear only, and NEW Canon gear at that :)

[Belmondo]

I would go for the glass. (easy for me to say---I already have a Mk II).

In retrospect, even though I love the camera, I can see that 5 years from now, the big lenses would mean a lot more to me than an 8 megapixel camera, especially in an age when Rebels will probably be 16 megapixels or more.

[Cadwell]

The answer really depends on what you intend to shoot.

[Tom W]

I have to say the body. Primarily since it will AF at f/8 and that's exactly what the 100-400 and 1.4X TC give me. :)

Plus, it might be nice to see more capability at the wide end.

[Sketcher]

The answer really depends on what you intend to shoot.
NO! It doesn't matter! j/k. The thing is; I really don't need either. Which is why I left a vague bit of info. I don't NEED a MKII any more than I need 500mm. I do like shooting wildlife; where long lens would come in handy. I do like shooting fast action, where a higher fps would come in handy. For me, neither one is a shoe in right now. So, I left the details in the closet and offer some role playing; asking what YOU would do if you had my gear. Your interests and experience are all the more welcome to influence your decision in answering my poll!

[Sketcher]

Well, further thought on the matter... I'm leaning toward the lens. perhaps a 400 f/4 DO IS though. Being half the weight of the 500 and not requiring the tandem axle trailer. Though the 1DMKII is absolutely beautiful, camera bodies come and go. Lenses are purchased for the long haul.

[Jim_T]

I came very close to buying a 500 f4... I wound up buying a new house and quite a bit of the money I saved is going to have to be diverted to landscaping and improvements.. (2 acres)..

I really want a 500 f/4 :(

Maybe next year :)

[Sketcher]

\Note to self: Don't buy a new house :).

Hey, how many of you are voting for the 500 f/4 just to get the divorce papers!? :lol: See, there's more to polls than just the numbers!

[timmyquest]

You've already got a pretty nice collection of glass...move on to the nice body.

[Steveo31]

I would always choose glass in this type of situation. A camera is a camera for the most part. You can use the full power, and then some, of the 500mm on any camera. The camera itself is a last minute upgrade IMO.

[Belmondo]

It's not like you're 'roughing it' with a 10D. It's a very capable camera.

[RichardtheSane]

I too would choose the glass.

I like long term investments :)

[blinking8s]

personally, neither...unless the 10d isnt cutting it anymore...

[jgbeam]

You've got a good assortment of zooms but only an $80 prime. I'd start with the 135 f/2 L and add wider and longer L primes until the 5 G's runs out. At that point, you'll be ready for a new body. Your wife/GF might be too! :lol: :lol:

Jim

[Sketcher]

You've got a good assortment of zooms but only an $80 prime. I'd start with the 135 f/2 L and add wider and longer L primes until the 5 G's runs out. At that point, you'll be ready for a new body. Your wife/GF might be too! :lol: :lol:

Jim
You know Jim, I actually am taking an interest in primes; starting at 600, then 500, 400, 300 etc. :). My goal was to cover 75% of my shooting range w/excellent Zooms and then plunk for the primes where I realize a specific need for aperture & sharpness improvement. The 135 f/2L you mention is likely the first non-super tele prime I'll go for being that it may outperform my 70-200 f/2.8L in indoor events where that prime's DOF and sharpness would make for a superior capture. For now, my zooms meet my needs quite well and I'm obsessive about a super tele - the only alternative obsession being a 1DMKII or similar body. But you have me thinking about the other primes... Thanks for the input!


You've already got a pretty nice collection of glass...move on to the nice body.
Hey now, my 10D isn’t exactly chopped liver!


It's not like you're 'roughing it' with a 10D. It's a very capable camera.

Thanks Tom, I’m recovering from my feeling of inadequacy quite nicely :lol:


personally, neither...unless the 10d isnt cutting it anymore...

The 10D performs admirably for what I currently use it for. More fps and higher rez are niceties for me right now as are longer reach. But “NEITHER”!? What are you thinking man? I said you’ve got [hypothetically] $5k to spend. What are you doing, putting it into savings or something silly like that? ;)

Richard & Steve, the lens camp is winning me over. Lenses are more a long term investment compared to a body. I better get the lenses while I can and in the least I can enjoy them with chopped liver. Everything just becomes much more fun if I can enjoy shooting them with a 1DMKII or successor down the road.

At the time of this post the count is:

11 -> Body
9 -> Lens

You Body Buyers, do you already have long lenses, no interest in the super tele reach, dissatisfied w/your 10D? Or are you the proud owner of a MKII and just can't envision life w/out it?

[Scottes]

Glass, glass, glass - you'll have it forever. As others said, camera bodies come and go. The 500 f/4 will be with you forever.

PS: Don't forget the tripod and Wimberley for that monster.

[Andy_T]

Neither ....

spend the money on a great trip on which you can use your existing equipment to make great photos :lol:

Best regards,
Andy

[Sketcher]

Neither ....

spend the money on a great trip on which you can use your existing equipment to make great photos :lol:

Best regards,
Andy
Actually, you've hit more closely to the mark than I'd like to admit right now! The wife caught site of my B&H wish list the other day and suddenly she's bringing home Sandal's Resort brochures and hinting that we should earmark some savings for a trip. (I successfully sidestepped her efforts when the Dell/70-200 fiasco occured: almost went on a trip when the callback system was dropping orders when not responded to). She keeps muttering something about a honeymoon vacation we never went on or somesuch nonesense. Great, thanks for thinking outside the box Andy... :)

Well, I suppose a 100-400 L is doable w/out requiring special reconnaisance, a trailer or making the kids go w/out clothes. I get some image stabilized focal length in "L" flavor and the wife gets her vacation. I'll likely enjoy the vacation too and my life is always more enjoyable when the other half is onboard with the mission. Sigh... looks like it's back to the lottery in order to get one of those Super Tele's. Just when I'm about to conquer the world; reality comes a knockin'... next time I'm not answering the door :!:

Whew, fever's subsidding now. One sure does get into a wildly narrow focus when stalking a particularly beautiful lens.

[mdude85]

I'd definitely get the glass. With your new body you're pretty much stuck with the same image quality (face it, it's pretty similar) but with slightly more megapixels (as if those matter when we're talking about the difference between 6 and 8 mp) but you have no other options for different photo views. With 5000 dollars you can really expand your creativity by purchasing ultra wide angle lenses, fisheyes, good polarizers, tight macro lenses, new flashes, etc. With a new body you get...what, 2 more MP, less noise at ISO 1600, and faster shutter speeds? Okay. But you're still stuck with the same glass. In my opinion your creativity is not limited by the body, it is limited by the lenses. To me it doesn't seem like a very hard choice.

[DirtyHarry]

go for the 100-400 f4.5-5.6L IS USM or the new 28-300 f3.5-5.6L IS USM??

maybe or maybe not.....or if you really want to break the bank and lose the partner, then buy the EF 1200 f5.6L USM!! :lol:


8)

[jgbeam]

You Body Buyers, do you already have long lenses, no interest in the super tele reach, dissatisfied w/your 10D? Or are you the proud owner of a MKII and just can't envision life w/out it?

I was in your position a couple of months ago but had the Rebel, not the 10D. I was considering more glass for the Rebel when an opportunity for a MkII came up. Wasn't even considering a new body at the time. I went for the MkII and have no regrets, but now I want even more glass! So don't kid yourself - your choices are:

1. Buy glass.
2. Buy a MkII and glass.

MkII only is NOT an option. :wink:

Jim

[DocFrankenstein]

I wish I had your problems. :?

There's no reason for you to upgrade for the Mk II right now. You won't notice much difference. I know when I upgrade my rebel, the next body will have at least 12 megapixels. 8)

You only cover up to 280 mm. Get yourself 400 f5.6, maybe 85 mm prime and calm down.

[Lamplight]

Go gambling with it all!

Just kidding. :D:lol:

[MarkH]

I wish I had your problems. :?

There's no reason for you to upgrade for the Mk II right now. You won't notice much difference. I know when I upgrade my rebel, the next body will have at least 12 megapixels. 8)

You only cover up to 280 mm. Get yourself 400 f5.6, maybe 85 mm prime and calm down.

Ummm, there are many reasons to upgrade to the MkII!

10D - 3fps/9frames, AF min - f5.6

1DMkII - 8fps/40frames, AF Min - f8, weather sealed body

Personally I would go for the MkII, you already have 2 weather sealed lenses and they would go well with the MkII. The 17-40 would go from a FoV equal to 27-64 (on 35mm) to a FoV equal to 22-52, noticably wider.

For me shooting motorsports with a MkII and a 70-200 f2.8 would be the holy grail, if you want a better camera for fast action and the ability to shoot in all weather, then get the MkII. If you want wider angle on your FoV then the MkII is good for that too.

You could also keep your 10D for a backup. Or you could sell it and buy a long lens for wildlife (maybe a 400 f5.6, which would still AF with the 1.4x).

[IanD]

Got to go for the glass. Slap a 1.4 and 2 TC behind it and you have a killer bird tube. (Just ask Arty :lol: )
As for the divorce papers, been there, done that. Go for the glass. :lol:

[DocFrankenstein]

Ummm, there are many reasons to upgrade to the MkII!

10D - 3fps/9frames, AF min - f5.6

1DMkII - 8fps/40frames, AF Min - f8, weather sealed body
Oh please. Like it's gonna make any difference. How often is he gonna shoot in the rain? Or moving objects in the rain? please.

Even if he does, and takes a couple of nice shots. It's gonna be from 100 to 300 bucks each.

The problem is in the Canon's propaganda machine and his sucseptibility to it. There is NO need for him to get the body right now.

[SnJPhoto]

Are you the type of photographer to use the pre-set modes of the 10D as your primary shooting settings? If so you will have to learn more about the way the camera performs and its fundamentals. Personally I would have a hard time going back to a 10D. A couple of reasons not mentioned so far include autofocus accuracy and speed. Form factor/feel....I like the way the camera feels better that the pro-sumer bodies I've used (which includes 2 10D's). And how about the build specs....I don't believe the 10D has the expected lifecycle of the 1 series bodies.

The flip side is pretty safe to say.....great glass is worth it and will perform well regardless of the body its on.

As for the comments on things like weather sealed body, FPS etc....well, its a matter of what you do. I find myself at the beach doing portraits a lot. In most cases I am partially in the water, and while I never plan to get it wet, ya never know.

Ever thought of doing a little risk reduction and maybe just renting a 1D series body and glass and having a go to see which you really like and would use? Be warned.....you WILL ultimately want both.

Cheers


Scott

[Alexandre Gabriel]

Hmm, let's see what you can buy with $5K: (BH prices)

400 f/5.6 - $1100
300 f/4.0 - $1150
135 f/2.0 - $850
550 EX - $300
4 1Gb Lexar - $ 840
3181 Manfrotto Tripod - $365
1 BP511 - $55
Elan 7N Body (backup) - $300

Total - $4960

(Still saving $40 for some films. :wink:)

You get three L primes (that works as a 640 f/5.6 without the TC - can you use a TC on this lens? You mean - a 896mm f/5.6 L prime? OMG :wink: ), 4 Gb storage, a wonderful flash, a semipro tripod, a battery backup and - if the 10D fails - one more body as a backup. I think this list is better than a MK II body only.

[nosquare2003]

You get three L primes (that works as a 640 f/5.6 without the TC - can you use a TC on this lens? You mean - a 896mm f/5.6 L prime? OMG :wink: ), 4 Gb storage, a wonderful flash, a semipro tripod, a battery backup and - if the 10D fails - one more body as a backup. I think this list is better than a MK II body only.

400/5.6 +1.4 TC +1.6 crop factor = 896/8. 10D can't get autofocus for f/8.

[Mills]

If the Divorce Papers are real, why not get them BOTH?????

[Aylwin]

I agree that lens are better for the long haul. Since you don't really need either a new lens or body, why not upgrade existing ones?

You can replace the 50 1.8 with the 1.4, the 17-40 with the 16-35L, the 28-135 IS with the 24-70L. After that, there might be room for the 100-400 or maybe the 300.

[MarkH]

Ummm, there are many reasons to upgrade to the MkII!

10D - 3fps/9frames, AF min - f5.6

1DMkII - 8fps/40frames, AF Min - f8, weather sealed body
Oh please. Like it's gonna make any difference. How often is he gonna shoot in the rain? Or moving objects in the rain? please.

Even if he does, and takes a couple of nice shots. It's gonna be from 100 to 300 bucks each.

The problem is in the Canon's propaganda machine and his sucseptibility to it. There is NO need for him to get the body right now.

I thought that the question was about what WE would do given this choice!

I often wish my 10D was weather sealed. I take photos of motorsport events that run as scheduled regardless of the weather. If I want photos I have to shoot in the weather that occurs, good or otherwise.

I stand by my responce that there are reasons to buy a 1DMkII, just because you don't see them as strong enough reasons to be worth the cost does not make them invalid.

Sketcher mentioned that he shot some action that would benefit from the MkII and also that he shot some wildlife that would benefit from the long tele lens. I see no reason for your decision that the MkII is not worth the money to be translated to there being no point whatsoever in anyone buying one.

Please take a moment to consider that others requirements may not always exactly match your own.

[Sketcher]

I thought that the question was about what WE would do given this choice!

You are absolutely correct in that statement Mark! :)

You can replace the 50 1.8 with the 1.4, the 17-40 with the 16-35L, the 28-135 IS with the 24-70L. After that, there might be room for the 100-400 or maybe the 300.
My 'upgrade' list for when I have all my other obsessions achieved does indeed include the lenses you mention. I don't currently use my 50 f/1.8 enough to justify upgrading it just yet. It's a nice little lense that does a great job. The 16-35L grabs more light but doesn't perform that much better per my intended use than my 17-40 f/4. The 24-70L is on my list but again it's not a critical focal length for me. It's adequately covered by the 28-135 and I like the IS. I'll change my mind if the 24-70L or similar ever shows up with IS. I'll probably forgo the 300mm prime and go for at least the 400mm DO if I don't get the 100-400L. I think I'd like to have more reach than replace my existing lenses. Uh oh, now numbers are swimming in my head and I'm becoming disoriented.

If the Divorce Papers are real, why not get them BOTH?????
Nah, not real. Just interjecting a point of humor being that most of us with significant others catch quite a bit of flack when spending insane amounts of money on gear. If I can’t get a reasonable response I can at least appreciate the humor vote!

Are you the type of photographer to use the pre-set modes of the 10D as your primary shooting settings?
There are pre-set modes!? :shock: I used to shoot presets but quickly realized the shame in not taking off the training wheels. So I put it on Manual and got muhself some learnin'. Been in the manual/semi-manual modes ever since. Still learnin’.

To all the 1DMKII Saints, no question I'd like the MKII better. I'm not comparing the 10D and MKII. I'm inquiring what would YOU do if you had my gear and this much cash to spend. I WILL own a 1 Series DSLR in the next few years. The 10D is still more camera than I use. FPS, Weather sealing and f/8 AF are niceties that would come in handy here and there but won’t monumentally increment the quality of my photography at this time. At least not sufficiently for the cost to be of measurable value. In a years’ time that may well begin to change and like I said, I intend to join the big boys in time.

My inquiry and everyone’s input helps me cover bases I may not have thought of and believe me, one day to the next I feel differently about the whole thing. Currently, I’ve backed down a little from the extremes and have decided to get a 100-400L, take the Wife on a nice vacation and enjoy the gear I’ve got.

I have solidly entered the camp of “Glass 1st” though. There will always be a new body to drool after (camera body that is).