20D or 100-400L IS

[Tshoe]

I have been saving and would like some advise, I have a 300D and don't know whether it would be smarter to upgrade to the 20D or get the 100-400L IS to compliment the 300D.

Terry

[AjP]

this is big delema, good luck with decision. if you had 350d I would recomend 100-400, but in your case really hard to say. if you not do big prints and quality of images is good with your rebel, then get lense, if you need to improve quality and size, get 20D

[jfrancho]

You have to list the problems owning a 20D would overcome side by side with a list of the benefits owning a 100-400L would bring. It really is a decision you have to make. For me it's a no brainer, I would get...

[condyk]

... the 100-400mm if it was me, but excellent thoughtful points about choices above.

[jaypie77]

Is there anything bad about your 300D that would make the upgrade to a 20D worthwhile?

For me, I almost always choose lenses over bodies - unless you hit the wall in regard to the capabilities of the bodies you're using.

[lordjim]

I bought both but if I had to choose I would have chosen the 100-400L first as the 300D is already a very good camera. It is likely that you will miss more the extra reach of the 100-400 than the additional features of the 20D.

[RikWriter]

Only reason to get the 20D before the 100-400 is, digital camera bodies depreciate quickly, whereas lenses generally don't. IOW, the longer you wait to sell your Rebel, the less you'll get for it.

[johneo]

Personally, I'd go for the 100-400 L. A 20D will be upgraded sooner or later ... the 100-400 L will stay with you for a lot of upgrades and it's worth every penny when you sit back and admire the results from this lens.

Having said that, ask youself if the 300D does the job? Are you happy with the results you get now (we all want upgrades, but is a 20D the end all to your upgrade needs?)

Is the 300D lacking in most of the features you want or need?

I have a 10D and really don't see me upgrading for a while (unless I hit the lottery ... 1Ds MarkII is tops on the list, New Ford Thunderbird is 2nd, food, shelter and clothing for my family is 3rd) but I do plan on upgrading my lens collection regularly.

[Little Fish]

Odds are that you will eventually get both. Since you already have a 75-300 lens, I'm guessing that you have an immediate need for the extra length of the 100-400, the quality of the L lens, and/or the stability of the IS. I'd get the lens first and then start coming up with a way to upgrade on the body.

Frank.

[CorruptedPhotographer]

If you are feeling suffocated to speak from the limited options of your current cam then upgrade. But I was about to follow that path of thought and get the ebst camera. When I finally understood that in the end, the camera (body) is just a light-proof-tight box that preserves images with the help of some extremely well-built options. Buy glass, even if you had a EOS 1Ds MkII and cheap glass, you would not produce images better than someone with a 300D and the Ef 135 F/2 for example. Plus, your glass lasts, you can use it on the enxt camera you probably will upgrade to. The camera you currently have will either occupy position as a back-up cam or a used cam on ebay ;)

[jfrancho]

Only reason to get the 20D before the 100-400 is, digital camera bodies depreciate quickly, whereas lenses generally don't. IOW, the longer you wait to sell your Rebel, the less you'll get for it.But it stands to argue that the longer you have your current camera, the more images you will take, therefore getting more value out of the initial purchase.

[Mr. Clean]

I'd get the lens personally. The 20d won't make you take better pictures really, but the lense sure might!

Hehehe, the main reason us men want the 20d is because it's bigger and badder. It's hard to resist always having the biggest and best though!

[CorruptedPhotographer]

The reason I went with the 20D rather than the 300D or 350D or 10D was because I wanted an SLR, but not too much SLR (i.e 1Ds MkII) and not too little SLR (dig reb series).

[xuxu1]

I have been saving and would like some advise, I have a 300D and don't know whether it would be smarter to upgrade to the 20D or get the 100-400L IS to compliment the 300D.

Terry
You have a nice camera there. If i were you, then i´d go for the 100-400L. A great lens believe me.

Later on (months, years.. who knows) you might go for a new body. Even then the 300D can be a nice backup camera.

The reason I went with the 20D rather than the 300D or 350D or 10D was because I wanted an SLR, but not too much SLR (i.e 1Ds MkII) and not too little SLR (dig reb series).
But you just have a amateur body same as all those (your opinion) 300D, 350D and 10D owners. Remember... the pro series start at 1D not 20D :p :lol: :p :lol:

ED

[RikWriter]

But it stands to argue that the longer you have your current camera, the more images you will take, therefore getting more value out of the initial purchase.

While arguably true, it does nothing to negate or even contraindicate my point. If he wants a 20D and can't afford it without selling his Rebel, he should sell his Rebel sooner rather than later.

[Alexandre Gabriel]

100-400. This lens lasts an entire "EOS lifetime" ;)
You will ALWAYS upgrade bodies. I think this can wait.

[Tshoe]

I am planning on keeping my 300D as a backup because I do weddings once in a while.

Thaks for all the input, Terry

[Rob612]

I would save up a little more and get the XT (that is a HUGE improvement over the 300) AND the 100-400. Get the best of both worlds, replace the 300 that is loosing value every day with a body that is VERY close to the 20D (and you can sell the 300 at a reasonable price today, in a few months I doubt it) and get a lens that will last for life.

Just my 0.02, good luck with your choice.

[jfrancho]

While arguably true, it does nothing to negate or even contraindicate my point. If he wants a 20D and can't afford it without selling his Rebel, he should sell his Rebel sooner rather than later.I didn't say that your post was inadvisable or wrong. A little defensive today?

[RikWriter]

I didn't say that your post was inadvisable or wrong. A little defensive today?

No, but perhaps you are too quick to take disagreement as defensiveness.

[Scottes]

Upgrading a 300D to a 20D is nice, but not a huge deal. Upgrading from no 100-400 to having a 100-400 is a huge deal indeed. :-)

Besides, you'll have the 100-400 for life. You probably won't have that 20D 5 years from now, since the 20D-equivalent in 5 years will be 20 times better for half the price, but the 100-400 equivalent will still be the 100-400.

[nitsch]

If you put two pictures side by side one taken with the 300D and one with the 20D you would be very hard pressed to tell any difference. If you put two pictures side by side one taken with your 75-300 and one with a 100-400L I think the differences would be much more apparent.

Unless you are doing shooting which requires more speed like sports then I doubt you will gain any quality from a body upgrade to 20D. Go for the quality glass.

[dkord]

lol I began answering this thread, had a couple paragraphs worth of reasons...then I realised: I don't you or your situation well enough to answer!

[jfrancho]

No, but perhaps you are too quick to take disagreement as defensiveness.Whatever. If you cannot handle point/counterpoint discussions, then I suggest you start your own forum where only you can post. For now, you belong to my ignore list.

[Medic1]

I personally went to the 20D first from a Drebel, then a couple months later I bought the 100-400L. For what I shoot most of the time, the faster/bigger buffer and true selectable AI servo was a must......

[RikWriter]

Whatever. If you cannot handle point/counterpoint discussions, then I suggest you start your own forum where only you can post. For now, you belong to my ignore list.

So, I disagree with you, this makes YOU fly off the handle, yet somehow *I* am the one with the problem....
Huh. Denial is more than a river in Eqypt it seems.

[CorruptedPhotographer]

You have a nice camera there. If i were you, then i´d go for the 100-400L. A great lens believe me.

Later on (months, years.. who knows) you might go for a new body. Even then the 300D can be a nice backup camera.


But you just have a amateur body same as all those (your opinion) 300D, 350D and 10D owners. Remember... the pro series start at 1D not 20D :p :lol: :p :lol:

ED

You are right Ed, I should have said it better. I meant to say, I went with the 20D rather than the 300D and 350D because I felt the 20D is a little mor advanced but not too fast (i.e 1Ds MkII), the reason I went with the 10D over the 20D was because the 20D has upgraded features and is newer. I in no way tried to pull the 20D off as a pro series. LOL i wish it were a pro series ( =

[J.A.F. Doorhof]

First invest in glass only than invest in a new body.
Glass will last you almost a lifetime, a body only 1 year on avarage.
After one year you can buy for the same money something better.

[ed2day]

It's already been pretty well stated, but I'll reitrerate it: Unless you know specific issues with the 300D are limiting you, go with the 100-400L. The general picture quality improvement of the 20D over the 300D is slight. And the relatively rapid depreciation of the camer body is precisely why you should go with the lens--over time the 20D will depriciate more rapidly than the 300D and the difference in their price will shrink to a mere pittance so you can have both the camera AND the lens. Although you will be likely eyeing a newer camera by then.

[johneo]

If you put two pictures side by side one taken with your 75-300 and one with a 100-400L I think the differences would be much more apparent.

Amen to that! I compared my 75-300 IS photos to my 100-400 L IS photos and it's remarkable. 75-300 IS isn't a bad lens (in fact I got some great shots with it) until you compare it to the 100-400 L (in fact I get some REALLY great shots with that)

[deedas]

My choice would be the 100-400L.

[CorruptedPhotographer]

So, I disagree with you, this makes YOU fly off the handle, yet somehow *I* am the one with the problem....
Huh. Denial is more than a river in Eqypt it seems.


the river is called Nile not denial, please keep Egypt out of this :lol::eek::rolleyes::D:mad::p

[drisley]

It depends on the type of shooting you do.
I had a 300D, and it didn't have full time AI Servo mode.
So, for indoor sports shots, the 20D would be a MUCH better decision than a 100-400L lens.
You don't specify what you want the equipment for.

[jfrancho]

the river is called Nile not denial, please keep Egypt out of this :lol::eek::rolleyes::D:mad::pI thought Egypt meant you were a victim of some online scam...

[booggerg]

But it stands to argue that the longer you have your current camera, the more images you will take, therefore getting more value out of the initial purchase.

That is.. if only you're making money with your camera...

[jfrancho]

That is.. if only you're making money with your camera...Does every purchase you make have to generate income to have value? Do a search for that laws of satiated demand. Assuming you can afford it, the only reason to continue using a product is that the value recieved outweighs the cost of a new/better product.

[malla1962]

save longer and get both.:D:D:D:D

[RikWriter]

the river is called Nile not denial, please keep Egypt out of this :lol::eek::rolleyes::D:mad::p


It's an American joke (or perhaps English)...

[xuxu1]

Amen to that! I compared my 75-300 IS photos to my 100-400 L IS photos and it's remarkable. 75-300 IS isn't a bad lens (in fact I got some great shots with it) until you compare it to the 100-400 L (in fact I get some REALLY great shots with that)
I had the 75-300 IS a while ago. It was´nt a bad lens and i got lots of nice shots too but the difference between the 100-400L and 75-300 IS is like comparing day and night!

ED

[arunchs]

I would go for 100-400L. The logic is that I am more likely to get better pictures by adding a 100-400L than a 20D. After acquiring it, saving for 20D would be the next step!! :)

[drisley]

People are saying you will get better pictures with the 100-400L, but again, until we know what he wants to do with the equipment, that statement is false.
I get much better pictures with my 20D doing bodybuilding shows than I ever did with the 300D because the 300D lacked selectable AI Servo mode, had slower/less reliable autofocus, and slightly less dynamic range.
Having the 100-400L would not have improved my shots at all. In fact, they would be worse because of the slow aperture speed of that lens.

However, if he plans on shooting pictures of wildlife, then the lens would be a better idea.

[xuxu1]

People are saying you will get better pictures with the 100-400L, but again, until we know what he wants to do with the equipment, that statement is false.
I get much better pictures with my 20D doing bodybuilding shows than I ever did with the 300D because the 300D lacked selectable AI Servo mode, had slower/less reliable autofocus, and slightly less dynamic range.
Having the 100-400L would not have improved my shots at all. In fact, they would be worse because of the slow aperture speed of that lens.

However, if he plans on shooting pictures of wildlife, then the lens would be a better idea.

Most people recognize that good equipment helps to get better results. In the end it depends "what´s behind the camera". ;)

ED

[Hellashot]

How about save your money and wait for the 20D to be replaced? :)

[RikWriter]

How about save your money and wait for the 20D to be replaced? :)


You want him to wait at least another year?

[fotogeek]

Continue to save and buy the 1D mark II.... :D

Or get the 20D, I think that would be better than getting the 100-400, although it's a nice lens for sure.