Help me decide 40D vs Lens

I'd go for the lens. The 350D is a very capable camera and that 75-300 warrants replacing if telephoto shooting is a priority of yours.

gooble wrote in post #4155935
The price drop will be so slow and gradual that before it drops anything significant the 40D replacement will be out.

The 400D price dropped significantly after a few months, shortly after the Christmas rush.

Does anyone recall what the release price for the 30D was, and when did its pricing settle down?

Nice side-by-side crop comparison, gjl711. Impressive, seeing how much sharper the 17-55 is over the kit lens.

Well, it isn't exactly a fair comparison considering the kit lens was wide open and the 17-55 was closed down two stops.

How about doing the same comparison at f/8 or f/11?

-js

number six wrote in post #4156728
Well, it isn't exactly a fair comparison considering the kit lens was wide open and the 17-55 was closed down two stops.

How about doing the same comparison at f/8 or f/11?

-js

Ah, my bad - I never checked the exifs; just assumed, since they're same f/l, same view/crop, probably same aperture.

Invest in the lenses now. You will be surprised how much your XT can do. That's what I've been using for the last year shooting indoor and outdoor track for a small DIII college. Of course, you could upgrade to a used 30D and get the Sigma 70-200/2.8 (never used it, but heard that many people are very happy with the IQ.) for probably the same price as the 40D.

Just my two cents.

avwh wrote in post #4156744
Ah, my bad - I never checked the exifs; just assumed, since they're same f/l, same view/crop, probably same aperture.

Nope, not your bad. The EXIFs aren't there.

But at 55mm, the kit lens is f/5.6 maximum, while the 17-55 is f/2.8 at all apertures. It's also $1000 vs. $100. Very nice lens, though.

-js

Thanks for all the input. I don't shoot much sports but I find myself doing a lot of low light or fast action type of photography. Ever since using my friend's 30D for an assignment shooting a small local fashion show, I've been wanting an upgrade. I just love the way the 30D fits in my hand and the extra FPS is a great help when I'm shooting something like an acrobatic performance.

There's no doubt in my mind that the L will immediately show better IQ on the XT. The thing is that I shoot all kinds of things. I don't really get to choose my assignments and they range from food photography to fashion to portrait to high school football. If you were in the same situation, would you get the body first and then the L or L first and then the body? Again thanks for all the input from everyone.

number six wrote in post #4156728
Well, it isn't exactly a fair comparison considering the kit lens was wide open and the 17-55 was closed down two stops.

How about doing the same comparison at f/8 or f/11?

-js

Both lenses were set to 5.6, and same shutter speed as that is as open as the kit goes so yes, the 17-55 is already stopping down. But it's still a fair comparison as the shooting parameters are identical. It's just that the 17-55 has a bunch more capability.

avwh wrote in post #4156744
Ah, my bad - I never checked the exifs; just assumed, since they're same f/l, same view/crop, probably same aperture.

They are the same FL, same view crop, same aperture, same shutter speed, same camera. All that changed was the lens and maybe 2~3 minutes of time as I took one series, then changes lenses and took the next series.

I also have shots taken at f/8 and f/11 and f/16. I post the f/8 shots below. As expected the center crop of the kit really improves and the difference is much less. But if you look at the edge crop, once again the 17-55 shines.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

bsaber wrote in post #4157293
... If you were in the same situation, would you get the body first and then the L or L first and then the body? Again thanks for all the input from everyone.

It's impossible to answer that question as each individual is going to be different. But clearly you want the 40 and are leaning that way so go for it and stop fretting. You can over analyze this thing to death and by the time you get consensus, the 50D will be out.

gjl711 wrote in post #4157334
It's impossible to answer that question as each individual is going to be different. But clearly you want the 40 and are leaning that way so go for it and stop fretting. You can over analyze this thing to death and by the time you get consensus, the 50D will be out.

Quite true. I will most likely be buying the 40D first and then the L in Jan. Just two months from next month. Then to save up for the 580EX.

After looking at some of the other threads, I think I'll wait for Canon to get their act together with the 40D and go with the L first. Seems like a lot of people are having problems with the 40D and are on their 2nd or 3rd body before getting a "good" one.

bsaber wrote in post #4158124
After looking at some of the other threads, I think I'll wait for Canon to get their act together with the 40D and go with the L first. Seems like a lot of people are having problems with the 40D and are on their 2nd or 3rd body before getting a "good" one.

All cameras have some issues whether they are just introduced or have been out for a while. You're seeing only the posts of folks having issues. The majority of folks are not. But so far it seems that the 40D is suffering from the same things all Canon cameras seem to suffer from. Some ERR99s (My XT did this), magenta or purple LCDs, and front/back focus. There don't seem to be any big issues such as the MKIII focus problem.

xarqi wrote in post #4152666
Seems like a no-brainer to me, no offense intended. You aren't happy with your body, and you are happy with your lenses, so buy the new body.

I'm going to agree here. Although it did take me two 40Ds to get a good copy, I think you are at the point where a step up in a body will give you more satisfaction than getting more glass.

More glass is always good, but, I can tell you from experience that my EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS is my all-time favorite lens. It's so sharp that it's scary and I'm sure it will be that way for many many years to come. Given the images I've taken with my 40D vs. my 350D, there is no comparison.

Yes, it's true that bodies will always come and go, but I very easily see my 40D as being my go-to body for the next several years. It should easily give me 2-3 years of service before I feel the NEED to upgrade. If I have some windfall and can afford a 1D MKIII, well that's another thing entirely.

Think of it this way: get a really good new body, shoot with it and enjoy it, and save for and buy more L glass for the next year or two. I don't think the 5D MKII, or whatever it will be called will be cheap, and I can't imagine the prices on 40Ds coming down anytime within the next year or more.

Good luck, keep us posted.

Best,

Michael

I had the same sort of choices to make recently and I went for the 40D a week or so ago and im so glad I did. I wanted to upgrade for the faster focus, better size etc and had thought of getting a new lens first.

Im glad I changed at the time I did because I sold my 350D on eBay and got a very good price for it with a few accessories so all in it only cost me about £150 in the year that I had it which I thought was great and it means that after the rebate and selling the grip for the 350 I had more than half the money to buy the 40D already, if I waited I might not have got as much for it.

Due to working, dark nights and bad weather I only got to use it once so far but im very impressed and the difference over the 350D in terms of feel and handling is well worth the extra money, I was tracking crows flying over a field and it performed way better than the 350D ever did. Wonder if its possible to change my name now to just Mork though, maybe should have thought about this when I joined.

Im sure your just needing a little push to go for it but it sounds like you want some reasuring posts that it will be worth it, take it from me it is.