Camera or Lens?

Hi all, I am trying to decide if I should by a 1D Mark III or a 300 2.8. I shoot a lot of sports and wildlife. I am currently using the 40D and just need some opinions and or suggestions as to which way to go.

Thanks

Given your lens lineup, I'd be tempted to throw down the $$$ for the Mark III. That's just me, though.

I was in your same situation about 3months ago, and went the lens route. The 300 2.8 is incredible, but, you do have the 70-200 2.8, with the TC is 'only' going to be one stop less then the prime lens. I vote for the new camera too.

I only have a 400D at present, but my next purchase will be the 1D3. FYI I have a 70-200 f/4 IS, which isn't as useful with the TC.

Tomorrow I'll be pairing the lens with a friend 1D so it should be a nice match up I think.

I'll say lens. You'll still be using it in 10 or 15 years when the Mk3 will be a relic. You know a replacement will be coming sooner rather than later... your lens will still look shiny and new.

I understand the dilemna.
If you think you'll use the 300 very often, then I say go for it first because this will give you results that you can't get today.
The mkIII will be a big improvement over the 40D in terms of AF, fps, robustness, etc, but won't significantly change the images you get today. You'll just get more keepers and your ability to nail the right moment will improve.
I would go for the 300 2.8.

britt777 wrote in post #5986320
I shoot a lot of sports and wildlife.

1D... is all.

You have 400mm 5.6L which I'm sure you've found, like me, can perform brilliantly in good light. Plus, you could use it more because you wouldn't have to worry about upping the ISO on the MkIII

all the best,
Nelson

The 300

britt777 wrote in post #5986320
Hi all, I am trying to decide if I should by a 1D Mark III or a 300 2.8. I shoot a lot of sports and wildlife. I am currently using the 40D and just need some opinions and or suggestions as to which way to go.

Thanks

You sure you need 300 2.8 lens? You already have two great lens 70-200 and 400, both are great. If you really wish to add something then my suggestion is to buy 500 f4! For wildlife is a superb lens and you will have extra mm which you will always need. Then you could also sell your 400 f5.6.

thank you for all the great tips. I have thought about the 500, but thought the 300 would be a little easier to hand hold and carry around. I am so up in the air. Decisions desisions....grrrr

I'm not so sure how happy you would be shooting the 300 handheld for any period of time. It's quite a load to carry and very front heavy if you've never used one--just less than 10 lbs by the time you mount a gripped 40d to it.

It was my recommendation based on the fast 2.8--good enough to cover night games under the lights or wildlife in challenging conditions and it takes a 1.4x extremely well giving you a 420 f4.0 IS for when low light is not so critical.

My .02--your mileage may vary.

BTW--you have an excellent web site

I'd go for the lens to be honest - lenses last, bodies fade and die. Cameras too.....

I am leaning toward the Camera, just looking for a good deal.

Thank you for the compliment Dave...=)

TheHoff wrote in post #5987037
I'll say lens. You'll still be using it in 10 or 15 years when the Mk3 will be a relic. You know a replacement will be coming sooner rather than later... your lens will still look shiny and new.

agreed, lenses last a lot longer, build a better collection, plus the mark 3 will only go down in price

Wait for the 5DII? I am thinking my 5D is fantastic and the MkIII can only be better.

Since you already have a nice selection of glass, go for the camera...

Lazuka wrote in post #5988695
plus the mark 3 will only go down in price

Yeah, wait a couple years, you might be able to get one for $3000 instead of $4000. lol