Are the new high ISO cameras making you rethink fast aperture lenses?

I was just in the process of working out my budget for this years camera stuff purchases, and part of that was to include the new 200 f2.0 IS lens. I would be using this for sports like gymnastics and the like. But after a few outings with a D3, I am finding I can up the iso and keep the image quality the same, to the point of being able to shoot f4 indoors now. I don't have a 1D mkIII, just a mark II, so I don't have any real good unbiased evaluations of how well the mk III does or if it is good enough to shoot f4 now where I used to shoot f1.8 or f2. But if the MkIII performs as well at ISO 3200 and 6400 as the D3, rather than buying fast glass, I could now upgrade my Canon body and potentially now use more of my existing Canon gear in low light. For indoor sports and the distances I shoot from, F2.8 and F4 give me still good DOF control and isolation, where as f2.0 or 1.8 are too narrow for some events.

Anyway, anyone else considering shelving their purchase of super fast glass in favor of newer high ISO bodies instead?

Pretty soon you won't need a flash either.

Well, every gym I shoot HS basketball in, I need ISO3200 AND f/2 to get between a 1/400 and a 1/640 shutter speed. So I guess if you are willing to go up to ISO6400, then a f/4 lens would work. Personally, I still want the fast glass as well as the high ISO's. ISO3200 is fantastic on the Mk III, but if I could get away with ISO1600, I would.

Not a chance. I push ISO3200 @ f/2.8 on both the 24-70 and 70-200/2.8 IS regularly just to keep my shutter speeds above 1/160 when shooting dance. I've even pushed my poor 20D to ISO6400 equivalent when the going got really ugly.

I'm seriously trying to justify to myself the expense of a 1DIII for what amounts to mostly a hobby (I sell a handful of prints a year at best).

I've always appreciated fast glass.

Unless there's ISO 100000000 or something, I don't think so.

Also there is a benefit of low dof creative effects with fast apertures

There's more to consider than just the aperture and shutter speed you shoot at, also remember that faster glass gives the focus system in the camera more light to work with, and also makes manual focusing easier.
Also remember all the non 1 series cameras have AF sensors that are more sensitve with 2.8 or faster lenes.

I still prefer fast glass.

Your looking at $4500 dollar price difference between the 200 f2.8 and 200 f2.0. Would you get more value from a mk III, or the 200 f2.0? I am not sure it's that simple, but that is why I asked. DOF differences between the two are very close. Even f2.8 to f4 isn't that much at 50 - 60 feet.

Croasdail wrote in post #4811778
Your looking at $4500 dollar price difference between the 200 f2.8 and 200 f2.0. Would you get more value from a mk III, or the 200 f2.0? I am not sure it's that simple, but that is why I asked. DOF differences between the two are very close. Even f2.8 to f4 isn't that much at 50 - 60 feet.

You picked about the most extreme example possible for a 1 stop difference in lenses to contrast with newer bodies that have perhaps a 1 stop noise advantage.

Sure, sure....300/2.8 vs 300/4. 400/2.8 vs 400/5.6

But these lenses are not super common and I bet most owners already have a 1Dmk3 to go with them.

In any case, most people shooting low light are scratching for everything they can get. Give them another stop of useable ISO sensitvity and they will simply take it in shutter speed. They won't suddenly start using slow f/5.6 zooms indoors.

More realistic is to compare f/2.8 vs f/4 zooms or using primes vs. f/2.8 zooms for low light work.

Sure. Upgrading a new body has a much more reasonable cost than buying every lens I use in a faster aperture.

As it stands, I'm upgrading to the MarkIII almost specifically because of the ISO performance (acceptable noise up to ISO12800). It's substantially cheaper & more convenient than buying every prime L and switching lenses constantly.

F/2.8 and F/2.0 are on stop apart, that's only bumping the ISO up one more notch. If you were at ISO 800 F/2.0 it's the same as ISO 1600 at F/2.8. Shooting F/4 or slower is much more difficult, I'll still take fast glass anyday

On a related note, the price of the 200mm F/2.0 is ridiculous.

nope

Long live the bokeh.