Dilema between 20d & lenses or 1D MkII

[LordSummerisle]

Hi, im new to this forum so would just like to say hello first :)

I have saved around £2300 for a new Digital camera, I already have a 17-40mm f/4.0 L and was worrying about what to get to go with it?

I have 2 options, although you all will probably come up with about 20 others.

1/ Buy a 20d body for ~£900, a 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS for ~£1100 and maybe get a cheap 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro for ~£250-300 and my 17-40mm f/4.0 L.

or

2/ I could get a 1D MkII for ~£2000-2200 and my 17-40mm f/4.0 L.

I know that cameras are like computers (to a lesser degree) with bodies being improved every 1-2 years or so, but if a 1d mkII or 20d can take amazing pictures now , the pictures will still be amazing in 10 years when camreas have a 10 gigapixel sensor and perfect AF/WB/Metering etc so im not that worried about the body aging badly.

What i would like to know though saying that, if i get a 20d today, when (if) I get good enough that i need a better body (hopefully about 3 years) will the 1d Mk II be as cheap as the 20d is now or will it always hold its value. I know there will be better bodies than the 1d Mk II by then, maybe even a 1Ds MkII will come down in price;)

so what im saying is if i get a 20d now, and lenses, for £2200 could i get a mk II in a few years for ~£1000 meaning i'll get a 20d and mkII for £2200 and have the lenses already!!!

sorry if this is a bit confusing:rolleyes:

Thanks in advance, look forward to posting pics:D

Paul

[tommykjensen]

I would go for the 20D + lenses.

One lens with the 1D MK II seems a "waste" ;-) but certainly very limiting.

[Pekka]

Unless you really need features 1D Mark II offers, then I would say take the 20D and lenses first.

[tim]

I 3rd the 20D. Unless you're sure you need a 1 series, the 20D should do the job nicely :)

[condyk]

I agree ... and remember you will get much more fun out of the gear you've listed.

[LordSummerisle]

Hi, thanks for the advice,

I was thinking maybe the 1dMkII would be more 'future proof' wheras if i got the 20d there would mote likely be a time when i would need to upgrade.

How about the lens selection, what do you guys think, could it be improved?

Thanks again

[Andy_T]

How about the lens selection, what do you guys think, could it be improved?


Depends a lot on what you like to shoot :D

If you had the 17-40 as only lens on a film Canon body, the question is whether it will still be wide enough on a 1.6x crop camera.

Also, there seems to be a bit of a hole in the 40-70 area ... but if that is an issue for you can really only be decided by you.

Best regards,
Andy

[CyberDyneSystems]

I'm shooting a 20D and a MkII.. I'd much rather have the 20D and some great lenses than the MkII and one lens...

Get the 20D and the 70-200mm

For me 17mm is plenty wide...
The 100macro is nice too :)

[condyk]

The best hedge against depreciation is to buy second hand. paulhillion has some good Canon gear for sale if you check the Marketplace. See what it costs new shopping around and maybe you can do a deal. Canon L has excellent resale too so you can almost play for fun and resell with minimal loss. 3rd party gear can have good resale too if you buy carefully and it's usually cheaper new and SH.

Lens priorities are dictated most by what you prefer to shoot I think. I like wildlife, mainly African, and so have invested most in longer zooms and my wide angle. My standard zoom and Macro are more for doing bits and bobs and not used much, but I still demand good quality at a fair price.

I agree with CDS on your wide angle. Great lens. Even my 20-35 is plenty wide enough for me :lol: The Canon 100mm is a very fine Macro.

Because of my specific interests I discovered the 70-200mm's I had were not that useful re. range though I loved the quality. You may be very different. So, what do you like to shoot most?

[photography By Evangelos]

Get the 20D's and you will be happy. Get the good glass as it will last you a long time and the bodys will allways be somthing you keep upgradeing. I started out with the D30 then D60 then 10D and now 2- 20D's and my "L" glass is still with me long after the olders bodys have been sold off. Best of luck.

Angelo

[etaf]

you have a gap 40mm - 70mm which on a 20D with 1.6x factor
thats 64-112mm equivalent
a 50mm 1.8 is a very cheap lens and also offers great optics that may help file the gap

but i would say 20D + glass, what is it the MK11 has that you need for your photography

[Belmondo]

To me, one of the more compelling arguments in favor of the 20D is the availablity of the new EF-S lenses like the 10-22, 60mm macros, and 17-85. None of these will work on the 1D, and chances are good that most of Canon's new lens releases will feature the EF-S mount.

I'm torn myself.....I want the 10-22 badly, but have to come to grips with the idea that I can't use it on my 1D. What to do.......?

[Vita Rara]

I'm torn myself.....I want the 10-22 badly, but have to come to grips with the idea that I can't use it on my 1D. What to do.......?

Get a 1Ds Mark II and the 16-35? ;)

In all seriousness this is one of the issues with the 1.3x crop factor of the 1D bodies. We have sort of ended up as orphans in the lens department. No one is making lenses for us in equivalent focal length to what we're used to on a full frame like they are for the APS-C folks.

Personally I've just learned to deal with it. Frequently I like the feel of extra reach, but like you on the wide end I yearn for more, maybe an EF 14mm f/2.8L. :D

Now, as to the 20D vs. 1D Mark II. Personally I decided to get the 1DMkII. I decided that I wanted a body that was rugged. I travel by motorcycle a lot. I wanted the frame rate. I shoot dancing. And I wanted the feel and overall performance of the 1 series. I'm a bit limited in the lens department at the moment, but I figure I'll get them as budget allows, and in the mean time my primes cover most of my needs.

Personally for what I do, I'd take a 1DMkII with a normal lenth prime lens over a 20D. It's an awesome camera, but that's me.

Mark

[reggie]

Hiya Paul,

Welcome to the forum and " Alright Lad " from another Scouse shooter.

Get the 20D and the lenses you suggest. While the 1D2 is beefier I beleive the image output between the two is probably no more than a Rizla paper.
I've not used the 20D but I do have a 1D2 and some shots I've seen from the former are fabulous.
As you stated, the bodies will come and go but your lens arsenal is something you'll probably keep a grip on for a good couple of years.

Regards

Greg

[AjP]

I agree with Reggie, lenses is much more important then the camera body,
I would definately get 20D with good lenses instead Mark II and one lense

[Alexandre Gabriel]

Buy the 20d.

Some choices to fill the 40-70 gap:

Tamron 28-75 f/2.8
New 60mm EF-s macro
50 mm f/1.4 or 1.8 (best bang for buck).

Buy a 550-580 flash if you can. The grip also. ;)

[lostdoggy]

I'm currently in similar dilema, 20D or 1DMKII. Since I'm currently shooting with a DRebel I'm in no rush to run out buy either yet. I say yet because if the bug bites its a totally different story. If you are on a tight budget and the bug is biting real hard then I would say get the 20D. If the faster frame rate and the durable body is a necessaity then the 1DMKII. Both are capable camera so it would be the lens that will be the determining factor here. More lens is always better in IMO. For me, I'm just waiting for announcement of the release of 1DMKIII. I'm hoping for a full frame sensor. Pixel count is not that important to me, but I think its going to be 12MP.

[GyRob]

i so called upgraded to a 1dmk2 from a 20d the image is the same as far as i can tell, for my photography a bit of everything the 20d would have done anyway.
Rob.

[LordSummerisle]

Thanks for all the help and info, the general consensus seems to be to go with the 20d and lenses which i think i'll do, im not sure about the ef-s lenses in case i do get a body with a smaller crop in future and they become obsolete.

anyway in a few years i will probably be able to pick up a 1ds MkII for about 50 quid (£) in a car boot sale, haha i wish ;) and I'll still have my lenses to play with.

In a way this is similar to my pc dilemas too, i've had a great Iiyama monitor for about 6 years whilst my pc cards, processors and motherboards come and go and i've never even thouht of upgrading it.

i've come to realise that trying to keep up with technology is a very expensive and elusive hobby, so i'l just get something im happy with and not be tempted by the next megapixel rise or frame size for a few years.

thanks again for all your help and i look forward to posting my first 20d images soon

[tommykjensen]

EF-S lenses only work on 300D, 350 XT and 20D.

[griff2]

Your right about the Iiyama monitors. At work I got my first one in 1996 - it's still in use, although not by me. I hate to say this, but the 1d Mkii is the equivalent of the Iiyama and the 20D the equivalent of a Samsung.. Normally I'd say get a reasonably cheapo body and get good glass, but the 1d Mkii will still be usable in 5 years' time - it being built like a tank - I doubt very much the 20D will. Sensor resolution is now at the stage where, unless you want to produce large posters, you arn't going to see any difference as the Mpixels climb up. However, if you want superior dynamic range, and confidence in the AF, the 1d Mkii would be the way to go.

You could get a 20D now, and some good glass, but you know you're going to have to get rid of it sooner or later, to move to whatever 1 series is around at the time, so why wast your money, get the 1dMkii, and build your glass up after that.

[LordSummerisle]

I guess i really wanted the 1dmkII for the extras you dont get with the 20d, Living in the North West of England I would be travelling to the Lake district and North/Central Wales quite a lot for Mainly Landscape/Wildlife photography, and as reggie could probably confirm the weather in these places is not the best at times and could change from sunlight to a downpour in a matter of minutes.

This is where the weatherproofing and 1.3 crop factor (landscapes) and the better autofoces (wildlife/birds etc) would come in handy,

so it's not image quality im worried about as im sure the 20d would produce just as good images as the 1dmkII in the right hands (not mine).

on the subject of weatherproofing, canon say the 20d has weather resistance, i was wondering just how good this is?

thanks

[lomond]

I would tend to side with the majority and say 20D plus glass.

When I upraged from the 10D to the 1D MKII I already had some decent-ish
glass. As Tommy says one lens for the 1D MKII, or the 20D for that matter, would be limiting.
For wildlife you might want something a bt longer than 200mm. :?

The 1D MKII is an incredible camera though.
Paulhillion is selling one along with all his other gear on the Marketplace section, including 70-200 f/2.8 ISL, 100-400 ISL .
He's a UK member.

[soupdragon]

You can't win, you will either end up with a bucket full of pixels with a limiting focul length distribution or, tons of glass wasted on a consumer sensor.

[skiphoto]

I Have a 1dMkII for sale in mint condition for $2850 (close offer takes it)...If you want that I can ship

Cheers

Jski

[delhi]

get the 1d. Because you will instantly become a better photographer! Better yet, get a 1DsMkII and good L lenses. Now all the girls will stick to ya. :D

[Gadget-Guy]

Much like yourself i was stuck between buying some glass or a new 1D MKII N and was advised to invest in glass and then buy the 1 series at a later date as the 20D i had was more than ample for my needs.The main reason for upgrading from a 20D to a 1 Series for me was that i shoot MX a lot so the frame rate,Weatherproofing and Improved Autofocus of the 1 Series were the main selling points for me and the 1.3 crop was a bonus.After buying new glass instead of the 1 series i still had a nagging doubt in my mind that i had brought the wrong kit first and should of got the camera instead of the 300mm f2.8.So 1 week later the 1D arrived from warehouseexpress and wow what a difference,it did all the 20D did and more and i am sure that my photography has advanced due to this camera even though its more than likely nothing to do with this.So now the 300 sits in its box and still only sees light about once a month but the 1 series and a 17-40 is with me no matter what.

So think very carefully before you buy anything yes the 20D is a great camera but the 1 series is so much better.Also you have to use the 1 series to believe the quality compared to a 20D and i think you will be amazed.

Dont think the 20D is very waterproof but then again you would still have to be carefull with a 1 Series as although they are weatherproof i still would not like to take mine out in the pooring rain to find out.