Mark II vs Glass

I face a choice that is more of a question of New Camera vs New Long Glass. I recently bought and sold a Sigma 120-300 2.8, a freaking beautiful lens, but I want/need to learn to shoot with a prime.

I will be shooting lots of indoor and eventually more outdoor sports, as I live in Minnesota, where most high school sports aren't played outdoors!

I have a few technical questions about the Mark II vs a 300 2.8.

The Mark II has 45 autofocus points. Are these meant more for having very sensitive autofocus, highly selectable points, both- and am I missing some other feature there?

Does the Mark II handle ISO 1600-3200 better than the 20D?

Does the 300 2.8 "need" or "want" the level of autofocus the Mark II provides to give the best tracking possible? I can get both, eventually.

And of course, for anyone with actual experience, how does the AF compare between the 40D and the Mark II?

Thanks!

Is my question unclear, or does no one want to answer?

It is a good question.

I went from 30D to MKIIN myself, and have no fast glass longer than the 70-200 f/2.8 IS L (100-400 above that). I still own two 30Ds.

AF on the MKII(N) with an f/2.8 lens in particular will be faster and more accurate than the 20D.

It will also cost you, as you know, quite a bit to get that speed.

High ISO performance, IMO, is better on the MKIIN, but a few tell me I'm full of sh*t on that one but, hey, I just know what I edit.

If you are not losing a huge number of shots to AF misses, and you're not a photog for a living, then I'd vote for more glass.

Why not rent a MKIIN and check it out for yourself?

I'm afraid that if I rent one, I won't want to give it back

I am waiting for more replies myself. I am also trying to decide if I should go to a 1 series body or get longer/faster glass to use on the 30D.

I went from the 30D to the mkIIn myself. I would find it hard to believe you would regret doing the same. There made like tanks, auto focus speed is great. If you are refering to the 1Ds The noise is going to be lower for your indoor stuff. If I was shooting much indoors I would fiinally have an excuse to get one. I also have the 300 2.8 I.S. and love the glass. My thought would be to get the 1D size body first then the bigger glass it will ballance better imop. I didnt like how the 30D felt with the 300 on it.

You will get noticeably and significantly faster AF with the MkII with all USM lenses. I don't believe that the greater number of AF points gives you more sensitivity but it certainly does assist when using AI Servo mode. Having said that, if you must choose one or the other, go with the glass first then get the body.

cyber_m0nkey wrote in post #4297545
You will get noticeably and significantly faster AF with the MkII with all USM lenses. I don't believe that the greater number of AF points gives you more sensitivity but it certainly does assist when using AI Servo mode. Having said that, if you must choose one or the other, go with the glass first then get the body.

My thoughts exactly. I am currently hunting for a 300 2.8, then either a 40D or if I can find a good used Mark II.

IMHO - always buy new technology over old technology... meaning if you have a choice of buying something that is consider current vs something that's been replaced - buy the current.

Palladium wrote in post #4297569
IMHO - always buy new technology over old technology... meaning if you have a choice of buying something that is consider current vs something that's been replaced - buy the current.

Non-focusing 1D III or Perfectly focusing 1D IIN...hmmmmmmmmmmmmm

i do have first hand experience with the 300 2.8 IS and i did own the 1DmkII as well. i can tell you right now that you are facing a tough choice. the 300 2.8 IS in my own opinion is Canon's finest lens (and this is coming from the owner of the 500 F4) but i can also tell you that there are many many advantages to the 1 series bodies. the 1 series focus is simply in a league of it's own and you will see the difference with all your lenses. the 45 points are not only helping with servo action but also make it easy to choose any AF point you need for your subject. also, the entire AF system is simply amazing and allows you to fully customize the camera and match it to your style. as far as ISO, i saw no difference between my mkII and my 20D so i wouldn't upgrade based on ISO. as for the 40D vs. mkII in AF, i did own both and i have no problem saying that even though the 40D does have good AF, it is still not in the same league as the mkII.

now even after this great love song that i just wrote about the mkII, i am still going to tell you to go with the glass. the lens that you are talking about is simply amazing and unlike the mkII, will net you a serious gain in IQ. the IQ of the mkII is virtually identical to that of the 20D so unless you feel that the 20D is seriously lacking in the AF department, the lens will make the bigger difference in your images. i am sure that i missed a few things so feel free to ask..

blonde wrote in post #4297935
i do have first hand experience with the 300 2.8 IS and i did own the 1DmkII as well. i can tell you right now that you are facing a tough choice. the 300 2.8 IS in my own opinion is Canon's finest lens (and this is coming from the owner of the 500 F4) but i can also tell you that there are many many advantages to the 1 series bodies. the 1 series focus is simply in a league of it's own and you will see the difference with all your lenses. the 45 points are not only helping with servo action but also make it easy to choose any AF point you need for your subject. also, the entire AF system is simply amazing and allows you to fully customize the camera and match it to your style. as far as ISO, i saw no difference between my mkII and my 20D so i wouldn't upgrade based on ISO. as for the 40D vs. mkII in AF, i did own both and i have no problem saying that even though the 40D does have good AF, it is still not in the same league as the mkII.

now even after this great love song that i just wrote about the mkII, i am still going to tell you to go with the glass. the lens that you are talking about is simply amazing and unlike the mkII, will net you a serious gain in IQ. the IQ of the mkII is virtually identical to that of the 20D so unless you feel that the 20D is seriously lacking in the AF department, the lens will make the bigger difference in your images. i am sure that i missed a few things so feel free to ask..

A huge thanks for your input.

AF is really the main reason why I am interested in upgrading. The minor, but kind of nagging problem with the 20D is that the servo focus doesn't stay on, and especially when I can't quite fill the entire frame with a moving football player on Friday night, I tend to get OOF shots than I find acceptable.

if AF is the main reason, than i would say go with the mkII UNLESS you need to have 300mm fast lens. it is better to have the focal length and fast aperture that you need with a few OOF shots with your 20D than have a fantastic AF speed but not being able to get close enough...

blonde wrote in post #4297997
if AF is the main reason, than i would say go with the mkII UNLESS you need to have 300mm fast lens. it is better to have the focal length and fast aperture that you need with a few OOF shots with your 20D than have a fantastic AF speed but not being able to get close enough...

Quick response .. wow

I will be shooting high school and college hockey and basketball.

The of course football and other field sports when the ground isn't frozen.

What did you use your 300 2.8 for?

i do not own the 300 2.8 but i did use it quite a few times mostly for birds in flight when shooting with a few POTN friends. now, i don't shoot sports at all but from what i saw and know, a 300 will be a bit too long for hocky and basketball so your 70-200 is probably the best choice anyway. however, for football, the 70-200 will often be too short so you do need a longer lens.

honestly, what i would do is a bit different than the options that you posted: i would sell the 70-200 that you have and pick up a 85 1.8 instead (killer lens that will work great for basketball) and keep the 120-300 that you have right now. then, i would buy the mkII and bam, best of both worlds. you will have a fast little prime for the indoor sports and you will have the sigma which is an amazing lens for the football and other field sports.