Camera (20D) or Lens (24-70L)

[dphoto]

Hello All,

I bought a Digital Rebel one year ago this month. Believe it or not, it was the first camera I ever bought for myself. What a great camera for learning how to take pictures! Now, much to my own disbelief, I'm considering upgrading to a 20D. The Rebel takes great pictures, but I find myself being drawn to sporting events. There's something about being able to freeze action that's almost exhilarating... well, it is exhilarating. And then to have someone look at the finished product and simply say, "Wow." :D Especially of indoor events, because indoor action is not usually easy to capture.

OK, OK, Camera vs Lens. I had been considering the Canon 24-70L f/2.8 lens for my Digital Rebel. Not a bad choice for $1100. However, what about this choice... a 20D for $1400 plus the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 XR Di for $330... that's $1730. I don't have access to a 20D, but from everything I've read (and seen in samples), a 20D at ISO 1600 is comparable to a 10D (and presumably Digital Rebel) at ISO 800. Wouldn't that mean that I could get images on a 20D at f/2.8 that would look similar to an image taken on my Digital Rebel at f/2.0 but with the 1 extra stop DOF? That would be cool. So, in this instance, for my particular needs, it seems that I'm going to get better quality pictures by investing in a more expensive camera but less expensive lens. Does this make any logical sense?

NOTE: The following paragraph is off-topic, but on-topic to my specific needs, so skip it if you are in a rush or just not interested! :D
There is the fact that the more expensive camera plus less expensive lens is going to cost an extra $630. However, once again, my particular needs arise. My wife needs a camera, and after watching me take shots with my Rebel while she waits in frustration for her PS camera to focus, I think--no, I know--that she is going to want a DSLR also. And then there's this... someone actually had the audacity to ask me to <gulp> shoot her wedding. I already gave her the "I've never done this before and what if..." speech, but she got pregnant and the wedding's next month and they don't have any money and... anyhow, I won't do this event if I have only one decent camera body. But with two bodies... plus a PS backup... plus my wife shooting the event as well... plus will I ever make enough money to pay for all this equipment... plus I'm rambling...

Anyhow, sorry to get off topic, but I've found that everyone here is so helpful that it seems the more information the more helpful the feedback.

So, to even the playing field, if one had approximately $1700 and one wanted to shoot indoor sporting events as described earlier, what is your opinion: buy a Digital Rebel plus Canon 24-70L f/2.8 or a 20D plus Tamron 28-75 f/2.8? I've got other needs that seem to push me in the direction of the 20D, but I wanted to know for the shooting I'm talking about, what do you think would give better quality images?

Thanks so much for sticking with me on this one, and any input is appreciated!
-Deva

[Persian-Rice]

I would personally rather have a long lens for sports. I think that you might be looking in the wrong direction in terms of a lens.

I would hack the 300D and buy a 100-400 or 70-200 + TC............
The 20D is great for sports as long as you have an appropriate lens to go with it. If you plan on having a 20D and something like a kit lens, there is no point of even showing up at an event since the subject will probably only cover 20% of the image.

If you don't feel safe hacking the rebel, you can always find a used 10D for about $700 on FM and sell the rebel

[dhbailey]

Being the proud owner of both the 20D and the Tamron 28-75 lens, I would by all means encourage you to buy that combination and pass the Rebel over to your wife.

Don't worry about the making money part of any of this -- it's a hobby, do it for the love of it, and if any income comes your way, enjoy it. If the bride-to-be has no money, how does the fact of whether you have one camera body or two enter into things -- it's not as if she can afford to go out and hire a pro with redundancy of every piece of equipment. Offer to do it for free, the poor woman has enough to cope with.

[dphoto]

Hey, thanks for the replies.

Persian-Rice, I should have mentioned this since it has caused confusion in the past as well. I'm shooting indoor high school and cheer events that are typically in small gyms. I've been using my Canon 50/1.8 and even with this I'm sometimes too close to the action. My wife just got me the Canon 100/2.8 macro for Christmas and I brought it to the last event to give it a try. Even from the top of the bleachers, 100mm was too close in some cases. But you are right, with most pro sports you are much further away from the action. Oh, and with 8 megapixels instead of 6 megapixels, there is a little more that I can crop out of each shot if I need. Oh man, I can't wait to be able to finally use a zoom lens at one of these events... :D

Dhbailey, glad to hear that you are happy with your combo package. :D I'm trying not to focus too much on the money. Well, except when I notice that I'm tempted to spend inordinate amounts of money on equiptment. I've never had such an expensive "hobby"! One camera body or two enters into the equation since free or not, I just don't think I could live through messing up someone's wedding photos. There's the possibility of family kicking in some money for an inexpensive photographer, and if I had only one camera body, I would encourage that. But if I had two bodies, then I would feel comfortable with my wife and I shooting the event. I guess it's just a comfort thing. If I'm not comfortable doing it, then I'm not going to do it. :D

Thanks again for the input!
-Deva

[CoolToolGuy]

I would not recommend the 24-70 L for sports unless its wrestling and you are on the mat, too. It is generally too short for most sports shooting.

OTOH, the 70-200 f4L is about half the price and much more suited to sports. Move up to the 70-200 f2.8L, and you are in the same price range as the 24-70 L.

The 20D is a much better choice for sports than the Drebel, but you will generally be better off to build your glass collection before chasing the latest body.

My vote would be to get the glass - but not the 24-70 L for sports.

Have Fun,

[dphoto]

Hey Rick,

Thanks for the reply. Yeah, that's what I hear time and again... get the glass, get the glass. It makes sense in the long run, although since I do have a need for a second camera anyhow, I think it might make sense to get camera over the glass. I don't plan on buying a new camera every year. In fact, I was kind of hoping that a full-sized sensor DSLR would be in my price range within a couple of years. But who knows if that will happen, and I can do an aweful lot of shooting in two years! Any predictions out there... a full sensor DSLR for under $2000 in two years. Could it happen? :D I can always hope!

Thanks again, and either way I go, I will definitely be sure to have a *lot* of fun! :D
-Deva

[ToddMorris]

Hi Deva,

I'm sure you've already read the reviews ... you'd be pressed to find many people who aren't happy with their Tamron 28-75 lens. I've personally never shot with the Canon L equivlent, but I have a hard time believing that any advantage it may have is, worth the extra $800 ... unless of course you have the money to spend (then by all means get the "best").

In your situation, I'd say it's almost a "no brainer". Get the better 2nd camera, and later on after you make some money from your shots, go ahead and upgrade to the L lens ... you can always sell the Tamron used.

Just my two cents ... hope it helps,
Todd

[mikesd]

Have to agree with Todd, I would go with the 20D and the Tamron. I think you would see a larger performance upgrade from the 300D to the 20D than you will with the Tamron to the L.

[shiningstardv]

Hey Rick,

Thanks for the reply. Yeah, that's what I hear time and again... get the glass, get the glass. It makes sense in the long run, although since I do have a need for a second camera anyhow, I think it might make sense to get camera over the glass. I don't plan on buying a new camera every year. In fact, I was kind of hoping that a full-sized sensor DSLR would be in my price range within a couple of years. But who knows if that will happen, and I can do an aweful lot of shooting in two years! Any predictions out there... a full sensor DSLR for under $2000 in two years. Could it happen? :D I can always hope!

Thanks again, and either way I go, I will definitely be sure to have a *lot* of fun! :D
-Deva

To me, that's the answer right there! Get the 20D! Why, you ask? Because it's what YOU want. If you look at the above quoted post, you're trying to justify the camera purchase and saying why that is what you need more than the glass.

It's just like when you can't decide what you REALLY want, so you decide to flip a coin. When the coin ends up telling you which item to get, you either feel disappointed or relieved. Then you know your true feelings, and which item you should really get. That's what I see here.

So Rick helped you make the decision. It seems to me that you subconsciously want that 20D, because you jumped into defending the camera purchase. And what good will a new $1200 lens purchase do you if you are constantly regretting it and wishing you had gotten the 20D?

Oh and one more thing, I have the Tamron and 20D and love them both! Although I can say you might want a flash to go with that setup since you are shooting subjects close to you. Because I know what an indoor high school gym looks like, and I just don't see how f/2.8 even at 1600 ISO would be enough to stop motion. But if you've been doing it all this time, maybe you fine then...

[dphoto]

Mike and Todd, you are right, I haven't really found anyone who isn't pleased with that Tamron lens, and with the 20D, I think that would give me a good combo.

Shiningstardv, I guess I was kind of leaning towards the 20D+Tamron lens. :D Plus I seem to have so many other factors that make buying a second body a good idea, it really probably is a "no brainer". Nonetheless, it's good to hear from others who are more knowledgeable before spending that kind of money. I mean, this idea just popped into my head last night. Yesterday I wasn't even thinking of buying another camera. But then it hit me... camera for wife... sporting events... wedding... it all makes sense now. :D

Yes, Rick did help me decide as well. That's what's great about photography, and that's why there are so many different lenses and so many camera bodies out there... we all have different needs at different times, so there are these wonderful products to fill those needs. :D Rick makes a good point, and that point will probably apply to me and my camera needs in a couple of years. But today, I think my needs are a little different.

At this last cheer event that I was just at, I shot using the 50/1.8 at f/2 1/250 sec ISO 800. Most of the shots didn't even need to be lightened. However, most of the shots were not tight body shots, so maybe there was more ambient light available? During some parts of the event I was able to dial down to 1/160 sec (during some parts of the routine everyone freezes). I would prefer to shoot at 1/320 sec, but ISO 1600 is just a little too noisy for my liking. If I get the 20D, I will probably shoot at ISO 1600 f/2.8 at 1/250 or maybe even 1/320 or even faster if I can use ISO 3200. We'll see... :D

Thanks again everyone! I need to sleep on this, but I think my mind is made up. Oh, this is going to be fun... :D

-Deva

[DionM]

Just go the whole hog - 20D and the 24-70.

Go on, you know you want to!

[dphoto]

Just go the whole hog - 20D and the 24-70.

LOL! I should have known this was coming! :D I know it's been mentioned before... on this board, we just love spending other people's money! :D

-Deva