Need advice: Better body or better glass?

Haha you put tripod in front of a camera? Now that's dedication.

gregpphoto wrote in post #6265993
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.

I think being able to shoot at 200mm at 1/20 is quite usefull, but hey, thats just me.

Neither:P

30D and 2.8 non IS

:P

Just curious, but a 70-200 sounds a bit odd for a starter lens.

leadweight wrote in post #6267198
Just curious, but a 70-200 sounds a bit odd for a starter lens.

Not really a starter per se. I do have a Sigma 10-20 and can borrow an 18-55. Just wanted a nice zoom and therefore, looking into the 70-200.

i have a 70-200 f/4 non is and the only time i get blurred images is in low light, no flash, shutter speeds of 1/15-1/60 the subject has movement blur, but the background like buildings arnt blurred at all. proving to be slow shutter speed motion blur.

i have no use for IS, i have a monopod for that, its lightweight.

a friend has a canon s5 IS and he put it on a monopod. dont know why but hey its his money

Ridebmx wrote in post #6267390
i have a 70-200 f/4 non is and the only time i get blurred images is in low light, no flash, shutter speeds of 1/15-1/60 the subject has movement blur, but the background like buildings arnt blurred at all. proving to be slow shutter speed motion blur.

i have no use for IS, i have a monopod for that, its lightweight.

Thanks for the input Ridebmx. I think my shooting style is a bit similar to yours. I figure I'll be using a tripod most of time. The only times that I can think of handholding the lens would be outdoors during the day, which makes me think that I may not necessarily need IS.

Prior to the digital, I used to shoot fully manual film cameras. It's been a while since I shot on film, but IIRC I would always tripod if I knew I'd be going slow shutter.

Seems like the camp is split between folks saying better glass vs. better body. However, the poll shows otherwise with the glass leading. ??? decisions decisions!

I voted the 40D and IS myself, but personally I'd go with a 40D and a 2.8 non-IS lens myself. The DoF and the added stop is worth more to me than IS or a 50D.

gregpphoto wrote in post #6266569
Haha you put tripod in front of a camera? Now that's dedication.

I put a tripod in front of a "better" body. I assume he has a "lesser" body

For me the 200mm on a 1.6 multiplier camera showed my shakes too often.
The IS made a massive improvement in number of keepers.
I don't find the f4 a problem when I need decent shutter speed to stop action if I can bump up the ISO one stop.
The bokeh is nice.
And I don't have to carry a brick, the f2.8, around the woods in my pack.
And I have 600 bucks to put towards a better high ISO cam.
That's my reasoning for what its worth.

oaktree wrote in post #6267918
I put a tripod in front of a "better" body. I assume he has a "lesser" body

Shoulda been clearer hehe. Currently I have no body . But trying to change that by going out on dates :p Sorry lame joke.

Kidding aside though, I don't own a DSLR body ATM. I do access to some lenses. I figure I was going to do a 1 shot in getting either the 40D or 50D with the 70-200 F4 IS or Non.

Malk wrote in post #6267101
I think being able to shoot at 200mm at 1/20 is quite usefull, but hey, thats just me.

True, but you're shooting still life at that speed, right?

gregpphoto wrote in post #6268579
True, but you're shooting still life at that speed, right?

Or portraits or any stationary object.
I personally dont find that the one stop there is between the 2.8 and the f4 is all that important, however my personal opinion is that IS is important.

40D 300mm 2.8

dispatchermike21 wrote in post #6269038
40D 300mm 2.8

40D within budget

300 2.8 love it! But waaaaayyy outta budget.