Need advice: Better body or better glass?

Handheld without IS at slower shutter than 1/200 is problematic, maybe even 1/400 at 200 mm end of zoom. If shooting with tripod and remote shutter release, IS is probably unnecessary. Predominant use really dictates the answer to your question.

Glass first

Cobaltforge wrote in post #6268472
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.

Wow a DSLR ATM, you could take awesome pics, and dispence money. Hmmm i like it.

I vote for better glass, i have a 20D and that is still a great camera for me. I feel the only thing limiting me now is my glass. I bought the 400L, and after using that for about a year now i realize how much a difference good glass can make. I say pick up a good used 30d, 8mp is plenty for most of us, and then look at a used 70-200 2.8 non IS, and maybe something like a 17-40 or 24-70 2.8.

just my thoughts.

I'm in a similar boat as you. As much as I would love to upgrade my body AND glass, I am putting the glass first (see siggy).

Since you are starting from scratch, I vote the 40D and the f/4 IS. My opinion is that since the 50D isn't available yet and most people haven't had a chance to test out the "new and improved" features, it is worth waiting to see if it is really a great upgrade from the 40D.

dphillips81 wrote in post #6272722
Wow a DSLR ATM, you could take awesome pics, and dispence money. Hmmm i like it.

Ya it's awesome! But my limit is $300/day for withdrawals

But thanks for the advice though! I'm even debating a used 5D at the moment.

Edgar in ATL wrote in post #6272598
Handheld without IS at slower shutter than 1/200 is problematic, maybe even 1/400 at 200 mm end of zoom. If shooting with tripod and remote shutter release, IS is probably unnecessary. Predominant use really dictates the answer to your question.

Thanks for the advice! I actually do most of my shooting using tripods and less handholding. That's why I'm thinking IS may not be necessary.

Since you mainly use a tripod I'd go for the 50D. It seems like a pretty big upgrade from the 40D. You can save up for the IS lens if you find you need it, or you may be able to get one used. I'd have a tendency to get the 50D with the 28-135 IS lens for $200 more if you don't need quite so much reach. If it isn't enough you could maybe sell that lens and get a gently used lens with more zoom. Just a thought.

New dilema

wyntrsnyte wrote in post #6272978
I'm in a similar boat as you. As much as I would love to upgrade my body AND glass, I am putting the glass first (see siggy).

Since you are starting from scratch, I vote the 40D and the f/4 IS. My opinion is that since the 50D isn't available yet and most people haven't had a chance to test out the "new and improved" features, it is worth waiting to see if it is really a great upgrade from the 40D.

Thanks Sherri! I'm not in a huge hurry and can wait until after the 50D comes out to see reviews on it.

Putting glass aside, I'm seriously debating which dSLR body to get. I like the IQ of the 40D, don't know about the 50D, and have been looking at the 5D (used). Everyone seems to say that the 5D prices will drop when the mkII comes out, and I'm hoping that's the case so I have more choices.

The only thing that concerns me about the 5D is that it's a bit dated, though still a great camera.

As someone said, the difference between the 40d and the 50d could have been photoshoped easier.

aspiringphotos wrote in post #6273226
Since you mainly use a tripod I'd go for the 50D. It seems like a pretty big upgrade from the 40D. You can save up for the IS lens if you find you need it, or you may be able to get one used. I'd have a tendency to get the 50D with the 28-135 IS lens for $200 more if you don't need quite so much reach. If it isn't enough you could maybe sell that lens and get a gently used lens with more zoom. Just a thought.

Thanks Kelly! Great advice here. I love this forum!

I'm somewhat adamant about getting the glass right (hence leaning towards L glass). And even if I get it wrong, L glass (from what I've seen in the marketplace and eBay) tends to hold its value a bit better. Not saying that the 28-135 is bad at all.

40D and F2.8 because what's so great about the 50D? It doesn't produce great bokeh or DOF. It doesn't allow for a reach of 70-200 or 10 for that matter. Invest in glass. But I would opt for the F2.8 just because the 2.8 is awesome.

The 50D offers nothing as of now and ISO is quite usable on the 40D unless it's worse than the 20D which I've used ISO 1600 shots before.

_aravena wrote in post #6273303
40D and F2.8 because what's so great about the 50D? It doesn't produce great bokeh or DOF. It doesn't allow for a reach of 70-200 or 10 for that matter. Invest in glass. But I would opt for the F2.8 just because the 2.8 is awesome.

The 50D offers nothing as of now and ISO is quite usable on the 40D unless it's worse than the 20D which I've used ISO 1600 shots before.

True, but how about the higher ISO performance for low light situations? From some of sample shots (on a separate post) 3200 seems pretty usable on the 50D.

I've been looking for a used F2.8 (non-IS) as well vs. a new F4 IS.

20D ISO 1600

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Redirected to error image by ZENFOLIO PROTECTED

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

_aravena wrote in post #6273620
Missed focus one the first as it was very hard to sitting at a table with no arm space etc. Both have been edited quite a bit but I've even sharpened both with a bit of noise reduction. In fact the second is being consider to be used on this guy's site. I got a few more but I've been working on sports photos and not too much personal stuff. Oh, this is from Arabian Nights BTW, if ya didn't get that.

WOW! Looks great! I can see a bit of noise in the 3200, but 1600 is pretty darn good! You're convincing me!

Remember, there was sharpening. If I took that out the noise is practically nil.