Dilemma on what to buy next: extra body or lens

I am getting ready to sell my XSi backup camera body/grip & some lenses in order to purchase some different gear. I was originally going to get a 40D body to use as a backup to my 50D, but came across a particularly good deal at work here that's got me second guessing my decision. A friend here at work has a Canon 300mm f/4 L IS lens for sale for $810 (excellent+ condition).

I really like having 2 bodies on a shoot since that really cuts down the lens swapping, but this 300 lens deal just keeps creeping more and more into my mind. I shoot a lot of outdoor sports (soccer, baseball, track, etc) and currently have a 70-200 2.8 IS and a 1.4 teleconverter, but I have read that the 300 will have much better image quality than the 200/tele combination not to mention faster focus performance.

So, what would you do and why? Lens or body?

I'm leaning toward the lens at this point.

kb9tdj wrote in post #7589384
So, what would you do and why? Lens or body?

Glass first. Always.

Bodies are disposable. In three years time your new body will be an old one, but the L glass will still be L glass.

Andrew

TheGaffer wrote in post #7589438
Glass first. Always.

Bodies are disposable. In three years time your new body will be an old one, but the L glass will still be L glass.

Andrew

Yep, I guess I knew that; but it always helps to hear it from someone else.

A vote for the 300L - A great lens - really sharp, the image stabiliser is useful despite being an earlier version than the one on your 70-200. My favourite aspect of the 300L is that I can be walking with the family photographing the kids or birds etc and then I'll spot a dragonfly and can focus close enough to get a great shot without having to stop & mount my Macro lens.

I'd vote for the 40D!! Since the one you're thinking about buying is mine, and it's in PRISTINE condition!

Normally I say glass first but there is justification in having a second body, as you mentioned. At some point, one could say, a person has enough glass (ya, I know, blashmeny).

What do you need more, glass or a second body ?

I agree with Andrew - "Glass first. Always."

WesternGuy

I would say glass before body, but you aren't going to upgrade your body. The real question to answer is "Do I need two bodies?" If you do, go for the body. If not, get the lens.

I'd go with the 300mm right now, especially at that price. You can try it out and if its now what you thought, or no better than the 1.4x and 70-200 combo, you should be able to resell it for at least what you paid. The price of bodies continues to fall, but currently the price for glass is almost increasing daily.

TheGaffer wrote in post #7589438
Glass first. Always.

Bodies are disposable. In three years time your new body will be an old one, but the L glass will still be L glass.

Andrew

i disagree with this statement because it's circumstantial. if he's a professional photographer, a backup body isn't a choice, it's an expectation. if his 50d malfunctions, all the glass in the world would be useless if he can't use them to take pictures. due to funds, i need to borrow equipment when i go out on shoots, and i would never leave on an assignment without a backup body. getting photos with your existing gear is more important than risking getting no photos with a body error or accident.

From experience it is my feeling that when you're on a shoot, a second body is a must. Not only as a backup but also to minimize lens swapping. You're never sure when fate will deal you a bad hand.

Update: I bought the 300 f/4 and have no regrets at all; it's an awesome lens. Now it's time for the backup body....yes, Mr. jmilphoto, as soon as I get the $$$ I'll take the 40D off your hands!

Although you have 1 lens that won't work on a FF, buying a used 5d, for example, would add quite a bit of versatility to your exisitng lenses.

bohdank wrote in post #8047541
Although you have 1 lens that won't work on a FF, buying a used 5d, for example, would add quite a bit of versatility to your exisitng lenses.

hmmmmmmm.....something new to think about. I tend to mostly shoot sports action, so how does the 5D classic do for that? I'm concerned about focus speed & accuracy and low light performance (gyms, natatoriums, night/evening sports events, etc). Although the 5D would be great when I do get into sports T&I photography.

...and you already updated your avatar picture? Sheesh, you're fast.

Apparently the 5D center AF point AF speed / accuracy is faster (faster, or equivalent) to that of the 50D, and is dead on accurate from what I heard around the boards.

I would think that with a 5D and 50D, you could pop the 70-200 on the 5D and use the 300 on the 50D. That'll get you 70-200mm and 480mm (or even 672m with 1.4x) respectively, great for far away action on the field AND closeup action.

Or if you're shooting indoor sports, 70-200 on 5D, 85 on the 50D.

Plus, you get the great image quality that comes with FF - the better viewfinder.