Hey Guys and Gals,
I'm sure everyone get's sick of these kind of emails, I mean, it feels like there are ten new posts like this one every day, so I hate to add to the list - but I need some good advice.
Let me start by saying, I've been lurking around this forum for a while now, and I really feel like it's one of the best forums out there. Not only for activity, but for the knowledge of those who post here. I've certainly not come across anything better.
I'm a 21, almost 22 college student, and amateur photographer. Photography has been a great hobby for me, and that's really all its been - a hobby. I've had a Rebel XT since summer of 2005, and focused mainly on sports photography (for example: from the stands at a NFL game) and rail photography. I'd say 70% of my pictures have had a train in them, and the rest were sporting events, and some candids of the family and friends. I've done two paying shoots, two weddings for friends of friends.
Anyway, my eqipment is as follows: Rebel XT, the 17-55 kit glass, the 28-135 3.5-5.6, and the 70-300 4.0-5.6. I've wanted to upgrade for a long time now, but being a college student, I really couldn't justify spending tons of money on a photography hobby. But, now the time has come, and I really feel like I've outgrown my glass and my camera, and I have some money buring a hole in my pockets now. So the classic question...what should I buy? Body or glass.
I'd should preface this with saying I'd like to spend in the 1600-1800 dollar range.
I really feel like I've outgrown the XT, and with technology advacing so fast, 2005 feels like a really long time ago. So I'd like to step up to the xxD series, with either a 40 or 50d. I like buying the new stuff, so I've been heavily leaning to the 50, and I feel like the price difference is still so close that it's hard not to justify spending the extra couple of hundred bucks to get a 50d. So, what do you guys think? Is the 50 worth spending a few extra bucks? Or should I spend the money I'd save and put it towards glass?
So if I bought the 50d, I'd probably end up spending 1100 dollars, based on current prices at reputable stores. That'd leave me with roughly 700 or so dollars. I've thought hard about getting the 70-200 f/2.8 IS, and just spend all my money there, but I really feel like I'd be getting more bang for my buck if I got the 50d, and say the 70-200 f/4.0. But that leads me to my next issue....everyone says if you can spare it, get the IS. So if I dropped a few more hundred bucks, I could step up the 70-200 f/4.0 IS. But that's so close in price to the 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS would it be better to just get that? Or should I just bite the bullet, and give up my dream of owning L-Glass one day, and get the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8?
Any and all advice would be very much appreciated. And I'm sorry this was so long, I just figured all the details might be nice.
Greg in Cincy