Nitty gritty

A budding photographer friend asked me recently whether he should spend more of his hard-earned cash on a decent body or a decent lens. He can't really afford both. I'm inclined to suggest a cheapish body eg canon 550d(T2i) and spend what's left on the lens of his choice depending on his genre. Thoughts and suggestions please.

Impossible to know without knowing what gear he is shooting and what subjects he wants to shoot. Lens over body is the general advice, but there are cases where it may not be that straightforward.

He's inclined towards sports and wildlife.

well he'd want a body with fast AF and accurate AF. Basically it would be body first lens second in his case. if he's shooting sports a T2i I don't know if it would keep up with fast action. a 1D MK II or MKIIN would be a better choice

Sports and wildlife tax the budget on both sides. Long lenses get pricey and you must have enough reach to get there. As mentioned above a used 1 series is likely the best option, if not then perhaps a 40D/50D would be another consideration. The XXd option would allow the bargain 55-250 to be an option, good value there for the reach.

I would favor a decent lens.

I started shooting birds with a 350d and Sigma 150-500. My first upgrade was to a 50d (and later a 7d), but replacing the 150-500 with a Canon 400/5.6 made the biggest differnce in AF performance (and of course image quality.)

oingyboingybob wrote in post #16282084
He's inclined towards sports and wildlife.

If this is the case, he can get a great body for that purpose very inexpensively - probbly for even less than the T2i you recommended. Then he'd have an excellent body and still have money for a good lens.
The body I am speaking of is the 1D Mark 2. Some of them are now going for around $350.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #16282633
If this is the case, he can get a great body for that purpose very inexpensively - probbly for even less than the T2i you recommended. Then he'd have an excellent body and still have money for a good lens.
The body I am speaking of is the 1D Mark 2. Some of them are now going for around $350.

That sounds like great advice for the body! The reason that body is being promoted rather than the smaller/newer cameras is because the 1D series was designed with that type of shooting in mind, the AF being key in sports and many wildlife scenarios (birds in flight and moving critters).

And then, the lenses will be the challenge! When I started with my first DSLR, I got a nice body (the old 30D) and went for "affordable" lenses covering a wide range of focal lengths, but since one of my interests was wildlife (hadn't delved into sports) I quickly realized that the lens "matters", both in focal length in in IQ issues. So my lens "upgrades" came along pretty quickly!

And then you will have another challenge. I have found that the "better" lenses for sports won't equal the "better" lenses for wildlife! My best sports shooting lens was the 70-200 f/2.8L IS, because it was a super performer and the 200 fl was actually good for sports as long as you are reasonably close to the "action".

For wildlife you need more reach than that! My first "serious" wildlife lens was the great 300mm f/2.8 L IS, but I found quickly that 300mm was just not enough reach! So I stepped up a notch to the 100-400 IS lens. I still use that. I'd consider it a good "starter" wildlife lens, it actually takes a 1.4x TC reasonably well. Unfortunately my finances ran out before I could make the next "leap" to a 500mm lens, so today my "go-to" wildlife lens is still the 100-400!

Lens

I'd say go for a lens.

Bodies can come and go, but a good lens is for life.

Thanks to everyone for their input.