If you had $3000.00 would you..............................

[JABACo]

.........give it to me?

Ok, would you.

a) get the Bigma 50-500mm f/4-6.3 and 120-300mm f/2.8
b) buy a second hand Canon 200mm f/1.8
c) save more and get the MK II and use my 10D as a backup
d) Your advice

Uses - sports (baseball, football, basketball, soccer, cheerleaders, etc.) in good and low light situations and the opportunity to do some real wildlife photography. Yes, I can use a flash where I shoot and I can get reasonably close in all sports.

What I have - 10D, Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8, Sigma 2x tcon, Canon 75-300mm f/4-5.6, Canon 85mm f/1.8, Canon 28-80mm f/3.5, 420ex (very soon the 550ex).

If I haven't given you enough info, ask. But give me your $.02.

Thanks

BA

[timmyquest]

I'd go with C...but thats just me.

[BearSummer]

Hi JABACo,

Ok I'm a little confused about what kit you already have as canon dont make a fixed aperture 75-300 zoom, or for that matter one that is f4-anything. Also cant tell much about the 28-80, for future reference, we need the aperture range and which model or mark it is. However I will assume that the 28-80 is the kit lens that came with the 10D which means that its a fairly average lens. If it was me I would sell/part x the 28-80 and the 75-300 and replace them with the 24-70 2.8L and the 100-400 4.5-5.6 IS L and if you have any spare cash then throw in the 50 1.8 or 1.4.

a, I wouldn't get the bigma cos I dont know enough about it and I'm a canon snob.
b, the 200 1.8 is awsome but because its a prime you need to be in the right place to get the best from it. Also you need a good lens with some versatility which is why I suggested the zooms.
c, I would say that the MkII should be your next buy after you get some good glass.
d, see above.

well thats my tuppence worth, hope that helps.

Best regards

BearSummer

[mdude85]

I don't know if super wide angle is your style but given your personal collection I'd definitely invest in perhaps the 17-40 2.8L. it seems like you already have a decent selection of telephoto zooms... the only thing I can see as plausible is extending your range to 500mm with that first choice, but it might not be worth it if you already have 300 mm. That is just my two cents. your current shooting might not lend well to a wide angle but with a new look you can really expand your creativity ... sometimes it boggles me to see people taking bland shots of lions standing around in the desert with a 2000 dollar super telephoto lens.

[defordphoto]

If you're shooting anything sports the MKII will change your life.

[blacktape]

another vote for the Mark 2.

The only other option worth thinking of is the 200 1.8, but even then it's obsolete compared to the Mark 2. ISO1600 in the Mark II is unbelievably clean, cleaner than 1Ds or 10D that I'd be too lazy carrying around heavy 200 1.8.

[Jon]

C> Save up for the Mk II. That's what I'm doing. If I can keep from upgrading anything else in the mean time.

[Canuck]

Interesting, I must say...bodies tend to depreciate a lot quicker than lenses and to that end, I'd improve your lens situation. Well if you are going big, the 120-300mm F2.8EX is the way to go! Here's why, add a 1.4x TC and you are into the area of 450mm @ F4 (before 1.6x of 10D!) and no real ill effects of TC. Next, should you use a 2x there is some effect of using it but you are into a 600mm F5.6 lens alone and add the 1.6x crop of the 10D and you have a 960mm F5.6! I have heard good and bad about the 50-500mm Bigma, but a 10X zoom seems like a far fetch to me to be crystal clear at all focal lengths and it is an F6.3 at 500...see 120-300 w/ 2x TC. Now I am starting to feel I have gooten a deal on the 120-300 as I paid $1900 in Aug, 03.

End of the day, my vote is for the 120-300.

[Calvillo]

you shoot for a living and don't have a camera rental store in your area.
If my 10D goes down I can rent if I need to and complete a shoot.

On the other hand I always want more photo sites! So, if after the coming equipment announcements from Canon, the Mk II is the only intelligent choice to get to 8 million photo sites, that's what I'll be doing.

If the 10D replacement gets me there with a noise improvement for a lot less, then that's what I'd do.

Either way, I wouldn't buy a body now, since it could depreciate quit a bit in the next week!

[mdude85]

I'd get an awesome super wide angle (12 mm comes to mind) but that's just me. You already seem to have enough telephoto.

[CyberDyneSystems]

200 f/1.8 if I could find one...

[blinking8s]

id drop it all on glass and memory

[mdude85]

or maybe a nice big portable hard drive to back up your photos.

[charlesu]

But that's just my opinion.

[roanjohn]

Mark II..................

No doubt.

Ro1

[theoldmoose]

Aside from the 1D MKII suggestions, I'd look at replacing your 75-300 with something else, to improve your reach and quality at that critical range, if you shoot a lot of sports.

Either:

70-300 DO IS
or
100-400 IS

Depending on how bad you want the 400mm, and are willing to hold a heavier lens.

Either way, you'll improve the look of your long telephoto shots, and gain IS in that region. Flash or no flash, the IS should help out for a number of situations.

Look over the EXIF information for you recent sports shoots, and see what focal length/aperture shows up a lot, and if you are happy with the framing and quality. This should give you a guide to where you might want to either upgrade optics and/or increase your 'reach'.