Upload & Sell: On
I have both the 50d and 7d. In good light, they both focus equally well. .
That's good to know. If there's not significant difference in IQ, then maybe I'll stick with the 50D and just buy better glass. The 70-200 f4 is tempting, but the Tamron 70-300 for $330 used is a tempting too. Other than 6 weeks of little league baseball though, I don't really have a need for the extra reach. I was thinking the 18-135 STM would be an upgrade to the 18-55 for FL and possibly IQ, and 135 would help at the baseball field if I'm close. It's little league, so it's not like a big stadium The 18-135 and 50 1.4 would be a nice combo. I'd have a good walkaround lens and a good portrait lens.
I went from a 40D (and 30D and 10D before that) to a 7D, and I completely agree - in sunlight, I don't think the AF of the 7D gives you a big enough advantage over the 50D to upgrade.
Also, when you say LL baseball, are you talking 45-foot basepaths? If that's the case, then a 70-200 would be plenty, and f/4 is fine in daylight too. It's also a very fast focusing lens, even on a 50D. Assuming you have a good shooting position (dugout, or along the baselines) you can easily get the entire infield and the batter with a 70-200. Outfielders (who rarely see much game action anyway in LL), I used to shoot warming up between innings. Impossible to tell that it's not game action.
Edited on Jan 23, 2013 at 11:14 PM · View previous versions