Got he funds for an upgrade or new lens. Shoot sports some inside some out.

The MarkIII from a MarkIIn gives better low light performance with high ISO.

But the 200mm f/2.0 also will give me better low light performance at 200mm (and with a *1.4 a 280mm f/2.8) by virtue of being faster

The markIII will be cheaper as I would sell the MarkIIn

(Have already got 135mm L f/2.0 and 85mm f/1.8)

so which would you go for and why??

200 f/2 USM L IS

cameras come and go
the good glass stays

If you are happy with the 200mm focal length then I would go with the 1D Mark 3 for the high ISO performance. But I would strongly advise waiting a month or two until Canon sort the replacement of the AF submirror assembly widget out on the current problem 1D3s. Ideally if you buy one, you want confirmation that that particular body includes the fix directly from the factory.

In my opinion, an increase to good ISO 3200 performance would be better than moving from f2.8 to f2.

Neither the lens nor a healthy 1D3 will be available for a while, so you can afford more time to consider the alternatives.

You already have 200 f/2.8 in your 70-200 lens. You could get greater resolution at maximum aperture from the prime lens, but you'll also get less DOF. Will that matter to you ? Maybe you can analyse the shots you've already taken to help you decide.

You'll get a better IS on the prime but that won't help you with sports due to the subject motion.

At every aperture on any lens, the 1D3 will let you use higher ISO and get cleaner shots at any of the higher ISOs while also providing better low-light AF (when it works correctly) and so the new camera is probably the best path to follow this time.

- Alan

If the ISO benefit of the upgrade in bodies (MK IIn to Mk III) is 1 stop and the benefit of the upgrade in lenses (200/2.8 to 200/2) is 1 stop, then there has to be something else to determine the choice.

One stop in speed at 280mm using the 1.4x TC with the 200/2 versus the 200/2.8 would be one benefit, especially if you shoot at 280 often in lower light.

It's likely the 200/2 will offer incrementally better IQ at that focal length than your 200/2.8 or 70-200/2.8, but certainly not proportionate to the potential cost of the 200/2. Does IQ at the extreme matter a lot to you? If the 200/2.0 prices at US$4000, and you sell your 200/2.8 and 70-200/2.8, the net cost to you would only be about US$2000.

If you wait awhile maybe used Mk III bodies will drop in price and you'll be able to do both the lens and the body at some point, assuming you sell your 200 prime and zoom?

I'd hold onto my money for now.
(1) Even when the 200 f/2.0 IS reaches the retailers' shelves, its performance will yet remain to be field-tested.
(2) The MkIII is a camera in a limbo in my opinion. Not only it is not generally known what the defect is and how wide spread it might be, we don't even understand yet what the final fix is (will be)....is it firmware, hardware or some combination of both ?

If Calumet had a new 1DIIN I would purchase it in a second,
The 1DIII is not enough of an upgrade from the N.
The IS does nothing for a sports shooter.
Add a 5D to your collection if you want a great camera.

Are you referring to the 1D MarkIII or the 1Ds MarkIII? The 1D Mark III is readily available and the AF fix should be out within a month. The 1Ds Mark III should be available by the end of November/early December. Let's say by January 2008 you can buy one. The availability of the 200mm f/2.0 is yet to be announced. Buy according to your need and availability, with other words.

if i were u ill buy 200 2.0, the reasons are
1. N is good enough for shooting sport
2. people still face problem with ai servo on 1D mark III
3. 200 2.0 IS is giving u extra speed, bokeh & quality (at least should be better than 70-200 or even 200 2.8)
4. better low light performance on the camera upgrade isnt as big as lens upgrade (think aperture 2.0 & 3-4 stop IS)
5. better resale value on lens vs camera

but the decision is on you, should think 100x before drop couple k of investment

tom s wrote:
200 f/2 USM L IS

cameras come and go
the good glass stays

Great advice!

Yes realise niether of these are realistically available to buy at present
200mm f2.0 will come and stay, hold its value very very well and give me a pretty good 280mm f/2.8 as well

I would keep the 70-200 as it is so versatile and aim for the 1D Mark IV

Dont buy mark III, ai servo doesnt work good compared to mark ii,
buy lens instead.

The lens doesn't exist yet. Well, not as far as consumers are concerned anyway.

This is no-question since 200/2L IS does not exist yet. So take what is here (1D3) and may be God would send you more funds at the time new glass is born...

Intresting thought to take MarkIII now, I personally wouldn't buy one untill next year! Ai Servo is my number 1 reason for owning a 1 series camera

I hope you are aware that Canon only announced the development of 200 f2, so the best guess is it will be ready for Bejing 2008 olympics.

Having said that, if I were in your shoes I'd rather get the lens than 1D3 right now. Since you can't get the lens, why not wait and enjoy your current equipment? .

Lastly, great high iso quality and f2 are not the same thing. I'd rather go for f2, no matter how good iso 1600/3200 is

By the time the 200 F 2.0 lens ships the MkIII focus problem should be history (or there should be is less/same quality uncertainty as the IQ of the 200). Since the Mk III mounts many lenses with a 1 stop ISO advantage (and has other upgrades too) I agree "the good glass stays" so buy the MkIII and get the effect of 1 stop faster glass for ALL your lenses.

I bvelieve photography should be about the capture moment (shoot today) not inventory protection. I, for one, am glad for the rapid obsolescence of modern DSLRs as a path toward rapid improvement and toward pictures that have never been exposed before (example 3200/6400 ISO)-otherwise I would be shooting with a Leica.