possible silly question(lenses for 1dsMk2)

[Chrisc]

The 1DS MKII will soon to be available here in the UK and my wife as given me the go ahead to get one. The price will be around £5000 / $9000.

Although a dream camera and certainly a step up from my 10D I'm concerned that my lenses will be the weak link and should I opt for a 20D (always been happy with a 10D) and spend the money on Canon L glass?

My current arsenal of lenses are.

All Sigma EX
17-35 2.8/4
28-70 2.8
70-200 2.8
3002.8
1.4 TC
2.0 TC

I shoot aviation and rely on a 300mm plus the 1.6 crop so with a 1DS... I would have to shoot with a 1.4x converter to get full frame images, without the teleconverter I reckon the subject will be the same size as the 10D's image. With a converter I get full frame huge images.

I also shoot weddings part time and being able to blow up to silly print sizes is a big attraction.

I suppose I could get a 1DS MKII now save and buy a 400 L 5.6 later?

Any thoughts appreciated.

Cheers
Chris

[Cadwell]

I won't comment on your lenses but if you are shooting aviation wouldn't a 1D Mark II make more sense than the 1Ds Mark II? It's bias is more towards sports/action photography.

[fotocom]

The full frame sensor on the 1Ds MKII will mean a much larger file being cartured so you can do selective enlargements and blow the image up to the same as you would get with the 1.6x you get with the 10D.

Obviously if you had the larger lens or can get closer you will benefit from the larger sensor of the 1Ds.

The 20D looks like a great camera though and I might be tempted to use the money on top quality lenses and a second body. I just wish I was in the position to make such a difficult decision. :)

[dhbailey]

I can't speak about the 1Ds MKII but I can say I am very happy with my 20D and would suggest that putting the extra money into top-quality glass might give you better pictures than the more expensive body with the lenses you currently have.

Unless you have unlimited money available, there's no way to know for certain without trying both routes, but if I were in your situation I would stay with my 20D and put the money into better lenses.

[Persian-Rice]

I am with Cadwell here. The 1D MKII would be your best bet and will be much cheaper then the 1Ds II. This will allow you to get the lens and a Camera. You don't get the full sized sensor of the 1DS, but you get a 1.3 crop.

The 1D is the fastest of the bunch by quite a fair margin. It is relatively cheap compared to your other choice and it has the best image quality that Canon can provide.

Cheers.

[Chrisc]

Many thanks guys, the speed isn't really a concern, a 10D keeps up with and gets me the shots of most subjects, my reason for a 1dsmkII would be resolution more than most other features.

Also the thought process of why spend money on a 20D and then a 20D MKII and then a MKIII to finally get the resolution I could have now.

Cheers
Chris

[Jon]

If you want the 1Ds Mk II for the resolution, how big are you printing? Or are you doing massive crops?

I tend to agree with everyone else - get one of the lower-res cameras for a bundle less and improve your glass. 8 MP is still a pretty high resolution, and 3 x 20D generations are still going to be cheaper than a 1Ds Mk II now (even without assuming decreasing prices). You'll open up your capabilities a whole lot more by getting a less-expensive camera and something like the Canon 100-400 IS L or a fast 400, 500, or 600 out in front of it.

[JX]

I would agree with Cadwell and Persian Rice. I would prefer the EOS 1D Mark II over the 20D and the 10D. I shoot a lot of sports photography, so I choose the EOS 1D Mark II.

I use to shoot Weddings. For portrait work and weddings, I would opt for the EOS 1DS Mark II. I like a full frame CMOS sensor and the 16.7 Megapixels. The EOS 1DS Mark II has the versatility of a 35mm and the quality of a larger format camera. I used Mamiya Twin Lens Reflex when I shot wedding. This use to be the standard equipment (back in the 70’s and 80’s) for a wedding photographer. Most Wedding photgrapher perfered the larger negative over the smaller 35mm negative.

I think you need to consider what you can afford, and what equipment fits your needs.