ACK!!!!

Well now I'm officially torn. I have a 40D and a 5D. I realize both will work perfectly fine when the new models come out, but I'm very intrigued by them. As of 30 days ago, I had my heart set on a 200 f/2, but now I'm not sure what to spend my money on.

glass

Lens.

There will be another breakthrough body... and then yet another.

get the lens.

No no no, someone was supposed to come up with an idea on how I can get all three!

roberto1979 wrote:
No no no, someone was supposed to come up with an idea on how I can get all three!

Get a loan. Get a second mortgage. Rob the bank….

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Do you really need f2? Must you have a prime?

A well calibrated 70-200f2.8IS is a good alternative and is more flexible. A 200f2.8 prime will give you great sharp pics too. The 200/2 is so expensive that you really need a good reason to own one (assuming you have a budget) and to my mind you could spend that on either of the two lenses above and get pretty similar results. You could even consider the old 200/1.8 if you can find a decent deal on one.

Glass.

roberto1979 wrote:
ACK!!!!

Well now I'm officially torn. I have a 40D and a 5D. I realize both will work perfectly fine when the new models come out, but I'm very intrigued by them. As of 30 days ago, I had my heart set on a 200 f/2, but now I'm not sure what to spend my money on.


I am in similar question, either trade 5D on new model or get 300mm F2.8 IS instead. I prefer lens!

Lord Fluff wrote:


A well calibrated 70-200f2.8IS is a good alternative and is more flexible.

there you go! 2 new bodies and a 200mm that comes with 70-199mm focal lengths.

get the lens, no doubt about it

If you're asking yourself this question, it seems to me that you don't really need the 200/2 IS or 200/1.8

Because if you did need that glass, you'd know the answer.

the more I shoot the more I have come around to the "buy glass first, second and third and upgrade body last". It's conventional wisdom but that doesn't make it wrong.

It's a good problem to have. I need to pay down credit card debt from my recent struggle with gear fever.

Buy the glass.

There will always be new bodies.

New Glass, especially with those two bodies. Glass is an investment and will work with your cameras down the road. Chances are, the new bodies (especially seems how you aren't moving up to a 1 series) aren't going to make your pictures markedly better or allow you to do anything that you can't already do. I mean, a 300 f2.8 will produce better images on a 20/30/40d than a sigma 70-300 will on a 50d or 5d2.

DavidP wrote:
If you're asking yourself this question, it seems to me that you don't really need the 200/2 IS or 200/1.8

Because if you did need that glass, you'd know the answer.

Good point! The 200/2 is not a casual purchase

youcai wrote:
get the lens, no doubt about it

..based on no info on what he shoots or why he thinks he needs a 200/f2

Great advice.

Sell your old sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 (don't really need it with 70-200mm f/4, 135mm f/2, and 200mm f/2) and the 5D, then get the 200 f/2 and a 5D mkII...

roberto1979 wrote:
ACK!!!!

Well now I'm officially torn. I have a 40D and a 5D. I realize both will work perfectly fine when the new models come out, but I'm very intrigued by them. As of 30 days ago, I had my heart set on a 200 f/2, but now I'm not sure what to spend my money on.

Unless you have to have f/2 at 200mm (which seems to not be the case), I would be tempted to (based on the B&H price for the 200L IS):

Sell the 70-200mm f/4L and Sigma 70-200mm, and buy the 70-200 f/2.8L IS: ~$550
Sell the 17-40L, and buy the 16-35L II: ~$850

... leaving around $3900 for a body upgrade or two. Especially if you sell the 5D when the replacement comes out, this should get you into the replacement and still have money left over for a nice lens or an upgrade.

Well this is just a hobby, so I really don't need any of the 3. I love both cameras, and the 200mm would mainly be for sports like the X Games. That's only a once a year deal though, but f/2 is actually used. I just have some extra money to spend, so something like that would be fun to have.

roberto1979 wrote:
Well this is just a hobby, so I really don't need any of the 3. I love both cameras, and the 200mm would mainly be for sports like the X Games. That's only a once a year deal though, but f/2 is actually used. I just have some extra money to spend, so something like that would be fun to have.

No problem with spending a large amount on your hobby, but IMO dropping the whole load of $5300 on the 200L IS would not maximize your fun for the money.

I think you will use the 200/2 less than you think. But if you only keep it a year it will be a $500 "rental". That's not too bad. I buy lenses I know I will probably only keep a year or two.

Well the 200 1.8 is 20ish years old, so I'm sure I'll use it plenty in that time to justify it. At this point in time, the only other lens I'd like to have is an 85 1.8, so that's pretty cheap.

glass

Get the lens. The 200/2 is a thing of beauty.