40d vs 1dmk2?

cdifoto wrote in post #4144565
It physically mounts, but it has the 1.6x image circle like EF-S glass.

gotcha

timbop wrote in post #4144579
The 17-50 is designed to only project an image circle large enough to cover an aps-c sized (1.6 crop) sensor. On the larger aps-h (1.25 crop) sensor it will vignette badly.

Yes, I use my 70-200/2.8 for indoor basketball as well, but honestly an 85/1.8 will do even better (1 stop faster) for a lot less money. Sometimes f/2.8 isn't enough even at ISO 3200. You don't have as much flexibility with the 85, but shooting from the sideline or end line it will be fine. I have both by the way.

good point. would I have to worry any about the autofocus with this lens? but yeah, the 70-200 can be a good allaround lens for me and not just for sports. and plus I currently am recovering from acl reconstruction surgery so a zoom lens is good for me

I upgraded from a 20D to a 40D and the new camera is very much better for sports. It's not mainly the fps but the AF that makes the difference. It works well for portraiture too, what camera doesn't.
I can't compare directly to the mk II as I have not used it, but the 40D is a good sports cam compared to most.
The viewfinder is about the same size on the 40D and the mkII

disneydork06 wrote in post #4144668
gotcha

good point. would I have to worry any about the autofocus with this lens? but yeah, the 70-200 can be a good allaround lens for me and not just for sports. and plus I currently am recovering from acl reconstruction surgery so a zoom lens is good for me

The 85/1.8 is an excellent lens: sharp wide open, really fast AF, compact, and cheap. The 70-200/2.8 is also a great lens, more versatile than the prime but for indoor sports sometimes f/2.8 isn't quite fast enough. I can see your point about not being mobile, but if the choice is nothing in the interim then I would suggest an 85/1.8 for now. Continue to save up for the zoom, and then resell the 85 when you're within $300 of getting the zoom. They're $340 new, but sell used consistently for $300 to $310 and sell quickly. Just a thought, but that's how I've built my kit. I buy the best I can afford (almost always used), and resell that to get the next lens. Most of the time I don't lose anything but shipping, and even if I do I consider it a rental fee.

I had to sell my MK II n for monetary reasons...took a gift certificate and a little money and bought a 40D.

Here are my impressions

View Finder:

40D has a bigger, brighter biew finder than the Mk IIN

LCD Screen:

40D's bigger LCD screen is nice, but in this case size really doesn't matter....if a shot is out of focus you won't be able to tell without zooming...its a cosmetic upgrade that is nice but doesn't really matter that much.

AF:

MK IIn crushed the 40D in this area - not much of a comparison. But, the 40D still has a great AF. If you've never used a MK IIn you would think the AF on the 40D was the greatest thing ever.

Body:

Nothing feels like a 1D body....the 1D body trumps the 40D body in all aspects. But, the 40D body is very solid, big and easy to hold.

Burst Rate:

1D MK IIN - 8.5 frames per secod
40D - 6.5 frames per second.

I thought this would make a bigger difference, but it really doesn't Just time your shots better and you won't have a problem. I don't miss those extra fps at all.

Shot buffer:

the 40D crushes here - the both can take about 17 raw shots before have to download into the buffer. But the 40D can take up to 75 JPEGS vs the 1D MK IIn's 28. This is huge...I was playing around (testing) the 40D and took up to 130 shots (with a decent speed card) without worrying about it filling up. That never happened with the MK IIn.

IQ:

I know this might cause a little flaming, but to me, the 1D seems to have a little better shot right out of the camera. the 40D shots are a little soft to me, but very workable. They need a little more sharpening than the 1Ds do.

In all, I'm not sure I'll miss my 1D that much...but I will miss the AF on it when shooting my dogs (one of my favorite things to do) as they run toward me. The 40D doesn't handle this half as well.

If you can afford the upgrade to the 1D do it...the body is fantastic. But if you want a bigger view finder, LCD screen and shot buffer..go 40D

Hope this helps.

mdrtoys,
Thanks for the thorough comparison. I've been toying with the idea of selling my 1DII cameras and getting a 40D, but was concerned about the AF speed. Looks like I need to stick with the 1DII for my work.

Yeah, it depends on what you use it for...the major place the 40D AF fails for me is with oncoming objects. When something is moving towards you, the 40D has a harder time locking on....Panning it's very, very good.

All that being said, I really like my 40D and think it's a very good compromise of budget and performance.

It's all your uses, both are amazing cameras.

I am also very happy with my 30D as of right now...nothing compeling to me to make me need to upgrade to the 40D and I do not have the money for a 1D Series (all though I would love one!).

mdrtoys wrote in post #4146696
Burst Rate:

1D MK IIN - 8.5 frames per secod
40D - 6.5 frames per second.

I thought this would make a bigger difference, but it really doesn't Just time your shots better and you won't have a problem. I don't miss those extra fps at all.

Shot buffer:

the 40D crushes here - the both can take about 17 raw shots before have to download into the buffer. But the 40D can take up to 75 JPEGS vs the 1D MK IIn's 28. This is huge...I was playing around (testing) the 40D and took up to 130 shots (with a decent speed card) without worrying about it filling up. That never happened with the MK IIn.

Hope this helps.

wow, this is a really big comparison. thanks so much! and I love how you mentiont he burst rate. I shoot 3fps so I'm getting better at timing my shots
and the buffer is a huge one for me. but I thought the mk2n had a better buffer. that sounds like the mk2 (w/o the "n")

Yes, I use my 70-200/2.8 for indoor basketball as well, but honestly an 85/1.8 will do even better (1 stop faster) for a lot less money.

i don't have an 85 1.8 i have the 85 1.2 L and there is no way I would use it for a bball game. is the 1.8 faster? as for the first orig question.. can you fork out enough dough or take out a loan and make enough money to cover payments for the dsmk2... if the answer is yes then go with the mk2

disneydork06 wrote in post #4147554
wow, this is a really big comparison. thanks so much! and I love how you mentiont he burst rate. I shoot 3fps so I'm getting better at timing my shots
and the buffer is a huge one for me. but I thought the mk2n had a better buffer. that sounds like the mk2 (w/o the "n")

Well, they paperwork said that it was up to 48 shots for the buffer, best i ever got was 34 . 28 was the average for me.

Also, the paperwork said 22 Raws....I never got that on my camera and it was perfect in all aspects.

vpnd wrote in post #4147880
Yes, I use my 70-200/2.8 for indoor basketball as well, but honestly an 85/1.8 will do even better (1 stop faster) for a lot less money.

i don't have an 85 1.8 i have the 85 1.2 L and there is no way I would use it for a bball game. is the 1.8 faster? as for the first orig question.. can you fork out enough dough or take out a loan and make enough money to cover payments for the dsmk2... if the answer is yes then go with the mk2

Yes, the 85/1.8 is much faster focusing than the L. Take a look at the sports forums here or on fredmiranda during indoor sports season, and you'll see how much the 1.8 and it's sister the 100/2 get used.