Help on new Camera VS Lenses

Hello all, long time reader first time posting.
I have a struggle going on in my head regarding purchasing new equip.
I sold everything I had because I am about to try and make a go at photography. I have my first gig coming up in a couple of months shooting 40 dancers. Here is my question, My primary use of my equipment will be portrait photography and action/sports photography of my kids.
Should I a: Go back with the 40D and a couple good lenses or b: go ahead and get the 5D MII and slowly get my lenses? I can't afford to get lenses and the 5D. I could prob. swing the 5D kit with the 24-105L but is that what I need for portraits and low light action sports?
Please help.
Please give me a few ideas of what lenses would be good for each of the above. Also in my up coming shoot I have I will have to do small groups of people with about 11 people per group so I know not one single lens (prime) will cover me.
Thanks all for you help.

The general consensus seems to be to get better glass before you upgrade your camera. If you're thinking of going FF, just stay w/ the EX lenses and they will be fine when you upgrade the camera. I doubt there are any shortcomings in the 40D for what you've said you want to use it for.

You mean Ef lenes right? Yeah I knew that, however I know lenes like the very popular 70-200mm 2.8L that I am wanting to get really shines on a FF sensor vs the 1.6 crop of a 40D.

Mk1Racer meant EF lenses. EF lenses will work on any Canon camera. EF-S lenses will only work on crop (1.6x) camera.

And yes, lenses before bodies. I'd definitely go for the 40D with some lenses. The 70-200mm 2.8L you mentioned is great for both sports and even portraits.

Would you consider a 5D1? It's a great camera and you can get a good deal on it and a few good lenses. Or the 40D which is a great camera! For dancers I would try for the 70-200 f/2.8 IS and some nice primes, but that can get pretty spendy. Don't forget that you can always rent lenses for jobs as you need them. I don't own the 70-200 but I have it reserved for all of my weddings at the local rental place.

I'd get glass

Go for a 70-200 f/2.8 IS and maybe a 85 f/1.8 or a 50mm f/1.4 (I dont know how close you can be or anything)

The 40D has great capability in low light, probubly better than you think with a little post process trickery...even my 30D impresses me and your 40D makes it look like junk (i've used 1600 on my 30D...you should easily be able to use 1600 on the 40D as well, the 70-200 f/2.8 IS is THE indoor zoom lens to have...)

+1 on the 40D.

if your not upgrading to FF anytime soon, the 17-55 IS + 70-200 2.8 IS L would be an awesome combo. you could substitute it with the 24-70 L if you dont want an EF-S lens.

Now we are talking. Good stuff guys, thanks!
I can always sell the EF-s Stuff along with the 40D once I make the jump to FF. I had my heart set on the new 5D MII but All I could afford at the most is the kit 24-105 4.0L and I just don't think that will cover me. So everyone agrees that the 70-200 2.8L gives equal IQ on a crop body? That is one thing it tends to get beet up on in the reviews.
So right now my budget is 2600.00 and I have a replacement 40D on it's way. I can get the 70-200 2.8, and 85 1.8 for around 2000.00 so what should I get for those group wide angle shots? Will 600 buy the 17-55 is? or do I need to squeeze my pennies and opt for something a bit nicer? What I don't know. I am new to looking for lenses.

The 5D/24-105 is a really bad combo for low-light action sports. You'd have better luck with an Xsi and an 85mm f/1.8. And even BETTER luck with the 40D/85

BigAlz1 wrote in post #7466127
Now we are talking. Good stuff guys, thanks!
I can always sell the EF-s Stuff along with the 40D once I make the jump to FF. I had my heart set on the new 5D MII but All I could afford at the most is the kit 24-105 4.0L and I just don't think that will cover me. So everyone agrees that the 70-200 2.8L gives equal IQ on a crop body? That is one thing it tends to get beet up on in the reviews.
So right now my budget is 2600.00 and I have a replacement 40D on it's way. I can get the 70-200 2.8, and 85 1.8 for around 2000.00 so what should I get for those group wide angle shots? Will 600 buy the 17-55 is? or do I need to squeeze my pennies and opt for something a bit nicer? What I don't know. I am new to looking for lenses.

The 70-200 f/2.8L IS is a great lens - regardless of the body to which it is attached (as long as it will actaully mount ) So, get the 70-200 f/2.8L (with or without the IS) - it'll work great on the 40D and later on your FF camera bodies.

The above suggested 17-55 and 70-200 combination is excellent. I would get this and hold off on the 85mm until later. Can't go wrong there.

Scott_Quier wrote in post #7466559
The 70-200 f/2.8L IS is a great lens - regardless of the body to which it is attached (as long as it will actaully mount ) So, get the 70-200 f/2.8L (with or without the IS) - it'll work great on the 40D and later on your FF camera bodies.

The above suggested 17-55 and 70-200 combination is excellent. I would get this and hold off on the 85mm until later. Can't go wrong there.

Seconded, 17-55 and 70-200 f/2.8 IS

As for image quality, its not as good on a crop no, BUT go out, use it, and prove its not :P Thats right, you probubly cant

MTF numbers do not equal real world results

I'd third the 17-55/70-200 combo if you're going with the 40D. Primes are fun, but you'll probably get more use out of the 17-55 over the 85 when paired with the 70-200.

40D and good glass!! everytime...

I second and third the 40D it is a fine camera and I would gladly use one for shooting portraits. Many Wedding Photogs use the 40D, and you will see some incredible portraits taken with this camera too!

Just my two cents!

I agree with the direction you are going but I would get a fast prime to go with that selection... Sometimes, it's the diffrence between getting the shot and not getting the shot...
Enjoy!!