Need advice: Better body or better glass?

Hey everyone, been lurking here for the past month or so preparing for my next big DSLR purchase. Here's a bit of background, I've been shooting with an XT and XTi for about a year (both borrowed). Never have shot on L glass. Got a chance to shoot with a 40D and was thoroughly amazed. All cameras and glass were borrowed.

Now it's time to purchase my own equipment. Here's are my options:

40D & 70-200 F/4 L IS

OR

50D & 70-200 F4 L Non-IS

Of course the amounts don't quite equal out, but are within the ballpark. I'm in no big hurry to make my purchase and can wait until the 50D comes out.

What do you think? Any input is greatly welcome!

Though many obviously disagrees in light of the recent flood of "I cant wait to upgrade to 50D" posts, i will almost allways get better glass before upgrading a body.

You need to ask yourself if theres anything on the 50D that will get you better photos versus the 40D, in my case thats a "no", thats why im getting glass, not a new body.

The 50D is SUCH a huge upgrade in so many ways I vote for the 50D.

With the new High ISO settings and 1-2 stops better ISO performance you will not need IS as much because you can shoot at higher ISO with less noise than the 40D.

I'd rather have higher ISO's over Image Stabilizer. Remember, IS only helps if the subject is still. The 70-200 f/4 is light enough that you don't need IS (but then again Canon put IS on a 18-55 kit lens which weighs NOTHING in the real world, so I could be wrong hehe).

I always say go for glass, but again, I feel that IS is overrated, so I'd go for the 50D and the 70-200 f/4.

To answer Malk's question: the only thing I can think of the is the better ISO performance, and DIGIC IV vs. III.

The thing is that I'm starting with a blank slate and don't have an existing body, so it gives me an opportunity to start fresh and have a few more options.

The glass will last far longer than the body. I'd always opt for better glass. When the 60D, 70D, 80D... come out, you'll be glad you purchased the best glass you could afford.

But the 70-200 f/4 and 70-200 f/4 IS are identical lenses. Let's see, sunlight/outdoors, no need for IS. Tripod work, no IS. That leaves us with indoor/low light. An f/4 lens won't cut it there, IS or not. So unless you're looking at the 70-200 f/2.8, you're better off forgetting the IS and saving about $500.

That to me is absurd, how a lens can go from $500 to a $1000 just because of image stabilizer.

2.8orfaster wrote in post #6265773
The 50D is SUCH a huge upgrade in so many ways I vote for the 50D.

With the new High ISO settings and 1-2 stops better ISO performance you will not need IS as much because you can shoot at higher ISO with less noise than the 40D.

How can you say anything about the 50D?
No reviews is out yet, you havent tested one yourself, and the samples on the web is hardly anything to make any decisions on.

gregpphoto wrote in post #6265850
But the 70-200 f/4 and 70-200 f/4 IS are identical lenses. Let's see, sunlight/outdoors, no need for IS. Tripod work, no IS. That leaves us with indoor/low light. An f/4 lens won't cut it there, IS or not. So unless you're looking at the 70-200 f/2.8, you're better off forgetting the IS and saving about $500.

I've never had real-world experience with this lens, but you make some great points Greg. I did plan on handholding this lens, but like I said, never really shot with it, so not sure how steady my hands would be.

I was actually thinking of eventually getting an 85mm prime (non-L) for indoors use.

gregpphoto wrote in post #6265850
But the 70-200 f/4 and 70-200 f/4 IS are identical lenses. Let's see, sunlight/outdoors, no need for IS. Tripod work, no IS. That leaves us with indoor/low light. An f/4 lens won't cut it there, IS or not. So unless you're looking at the 70-200 f/2.8, you're better off forgetting the IS and saving about $500.

That to me is absurd, how a lens can go from $500 to a $1000 just because of image stabilizer.

So what youre saying is that the 70-200 f/4 IS is basically useless?
Let me guess, you dont own any IS lenses yourself.

Haha, I did, and I wouldn't mind it so much on a 70-200 f/2.8, which strangely enough weighs 2.8 pounds, ISless. But on a 70-200 f/4, a lens that weighs a pound a half, I believe, it's not as important. But maybe it is, to you. Just ask yourself if it's worth the extra $500 though, or could that money be better spent elsewhere? Remember, people have been shooting telephotos handheld without IS for years before it came along, and as I can recall, I've seen some great stuff from those time periods.

I had a Canon 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 IS, and found that the final difference between my images shot with the IS on and those without it we're never any different. I always tell people that IS will only reduce the shake of your hands, not the shake of your subject.

BUT, if anything, if you're gonna spend a thou on a f/4 IS, maybe you think about spending $200 more and getting the 70-200 f/2.8. No IS, but you can shoot a stop faster.

gregpphoto wrote in post #6265993
BUT, if anything, if you're gonna spend a thou on a f/4 IS, maybe you think about spending $200 more and getting the 70-200 f/2.8. No IS, but you can shoot a stop faster.

How about the F2.8 used which I've seen go for about the price of a F4 IS new? Like I mentioned above, I was eventually thinking about getting the 85 non-L for low-light/indoors shooting.

I'm just concerned with the weight issue since I'm planning on using the 70-200 as one of my main walk arounds.

Precisely what I did. Found a very lightly used 70-200 2.8 on craigs list for $840. Some small scratches on the body but none on the glass.

It's heavier than any lens I've ever used and it was weird at first, but hey, there used to be guys who carried twenty pound muskets into battle, for hours on end. Hunters have to shoulder rifles for even longer. How can we complain about having to lug, at max, five pounds up to our eyes? Anything heavier is tripod work for any of us.

Photographers are weak.

I suggest go for 50d and save some then buy the 70-200f2.8 IS L.

Glass first; tripod second (if ou still don't have one); body third.