I currently have a 40d with 70-200 2.8 and 100-400 as my main lenses. I also have a 1.4 extender. I am a hobby shooter who really enjoys sports photography.
If I were to come across some disposable income, what would my next upgrade path be? Would I be better off saving for a used 300 2.8 or (if I really hit it big) a 400 2.8 or should I take a look at a used MarkII(n) for significantly less?
Obviously the body will give me better AF which will net me more keepers (less OOFs), but the quality of those images won't be significantly better than my 40d (or will they?). Not only that, but I'm losing .3 crop factor which will essentially shorten the lenses that I currently have. On the other hand, it gives me the ablility to add the 1.4 to the 100-400 and still have autofocus which gives me a bit more reach (but at what expense on the AF or quality?). Also, it's the cheaper of the two upgrade paths.
Or am I better off delaying that purchase (roughly 2k) and acumulating several thousand more to purchase one of the afore mentioned lenses (on the used market, of course)? My ultimate lens purchase would be the 400 2.8, but I'm not sure I'll ever quite reach the point where I can justify (or afford) that (as a non-pro).
Your glass does have effective shorter range, but the 1dm2/n is flat out made for sports. The AF is far better than the xxd series, and you should see a much higher in-focus rate. I wouldn't bother to put a 1.4tc on the 100-400 - you'd be better off cropping.
In your shoes I'd look at the 300/4IS and a 1dm2 (not the n). Combined that will probably cost you in the neighborhood of $2300 (used). Eventually you can replace the 300/4 and 100-400 with a 300/2.8, which takes the TC very well.
timbop wrote:
In your shoes I'd look at the 300/4IS and a 1dm2 (not the n).
I'm just curious as to why you'd recommend the 1DM2, and not the N?
Not to hijack Gary's thread, but I am in the same boat as him, but shoot with 2 x 30Ds, not even a 40D. I find that the 30D's AF has trouble keeping up to the sport I shoot (an obscure dog sport), and am looking to upgrade in the new year, but I was looking at snagging an "N", since the prices have fallen so much due to the economy.
Is the only difference really in going to an "N" the increase in fps?
+1 to what tombop said. I was shooting sports with two 30D's until early this year when I sold them both and bought two used 1DII's. I most often use a 70-200/2.8L IS on one and 300/4L IS or manual focus Mamiya 300/2.8 APO on the other.
One thing to consider is that you'll be shortening your field of view with the larger sensor moving from a 1.6 to a 1.3 crop, so where you may have enough reach now, you won't on the 1DIIn. You'll also lose pixel density on the sensor, so cropping is going to take more from IQ. Technique can improve your keeper rate where focus is concerned. It can't make your lenses longer or faster.
Lance Couture wrote:
I'm just curious as to why you'd recommend the 1DM2, and not the N?
Not to hijack Gary's thread, but I am in the same boat as him, but shoot with 2 x 30Ds, not even a 40D. I find that the 30D's AF has trouble keeping up to the sport I shoot (an obscure dog sport), and am looking to upgrade in the new year, but I was looking at snagging an "N", since the prices have fallen so much due to the economy.
Is the only difference really in going to an "N" the increase in fps?
The more obvious differences between the "N" and the regular 1D2 are the larger LCD and the ability to write different file formats to the two cards.
However, there was some rumbling about the 1D2N included an unannounced AF fix from the 1D2. I really don't know whether there was substance to the rumbling. Perhaps the 1D2 shooters can attest either way.
Lance Couture wrote:
I'm just curious as to why you'd recommend the 1DM2, and not the N?
Not to hijack Gary's thread, but I am in the same boat as him, but shoot with 2 x 30Ds, not even a 40D. I find that the 30D's AF has trouble keeping up to the sport I shoot (an obscure dog sport), and am looking to upgrade in the new year, but I was looking at snagging an "N", since the prices have fallen so much due to the economy.
Is the only difference really in going to an "N" the increase in fps?
The only reason to go with the non-N is simply price. The m2 and m2n have the same sensor; the primary differences are the screen and some firmware changes.
I have the 40D and mkIIn and while liking the mkIIn for moving/flying wildlike I have begun to start reaching for the 40D at times also because it does fairly well on it's own merits. The mkIIn is a tad better on the focus end and frame rate is higher. I really like the camera alot. There is very little difference in image quality, but since there may be a few more keepers with the mkIIn due to focus accuracy it all comes out equal. The difference in the 1.3 crop and 1.6 crop is noticeable on my 300 f/2.8 and 500 f/4 for sure and that is one of the reason for having the 40D. The 40D is also a much lighter camera for hiking. I never compared battery life but use a battery pack for the 40D and would say the edge there probably goes to the 40D.
If I had to make the choice between the mkIIn and possibly getting a good deal on a 300 f/2.8 IS or 400 f/2.8 IS I would lean towards the glass.
I would sell the 100-400, and take that money and put it towards a 1D2 (not the N) and then spend your jackpot on a 300 2.8 (non-IS if need be). You can but the 1.4x or even 2x TC on the 300 without too much suffering (effectively replacing the 100-400 and then you will also have a 1 series body. My 1D2 by far beat the 40D I used to have. There is negligible difference B/T the N and non N version. I would rather take the extra $$ saved and be able to get the 1D2 and 300 2.8. I have never compared a 1D2 and 1D2n AF, but my 1D2 focuses like a dream when I do my part.
I think timbop's idea was to get MkII performance without the extra for an N and spend the savings in glass which makes perfect sense if I'm on a restricted budget (which I am, of course). It's a bang-for-the-buck approach and a darn good one. I think, however, that there is a component to my situation which I didn't clearly explain. I am happy with the 100-400 for daytime shooting. While it doesn't give me the bokeh that a 2.8 lens gives, I get great reach and the flexiblility of the zoom is a big benefit. Shooting at night, however, I'm limited to the 70-200 which is my only 2.8 lens. Given that the MkII is only a 1.3 crop, my 200mm (=320mm w/ 40d) - already short for field sports - becomes even shorter (=260mm). An f/4 lens doesn't give me the speed I need to shoot under the lights. I can effectively create close to that with the 1.4 extender on my 70-200 (280mm f/4).
I guess, as I explore this a little more in depth, my question is - given the better focusing ability of the MkII, does it more than make up for the fact that I'll be shooting with a shorter reach (effectively) and will miss the ability to take shots that are now too far away and would require more cropping on a sensor that already has less resolution than the 40d? Seems freaklikeme and Gil_W addressed this directly above and both feel the answer is in favor of glass over new body. Others seem intent on moving me to a 1-series body as a foundation and building from there.
jcolwell - you've already made the move from 30d to MkII (assuming you kept the same lenses). Was it worth the move? Can you expand on your findings and how they relate to my concerns?
I made the move from 20D to 40D to 1D and then got a 1D2 to go with the 1D. The way I look at is this... be forewarned I work for a newspaper, so IQ isn't on the top of my list when buying gear. If I shoot with a 1 series and a 70-200, I am assured that, if I do my part, I will have an image that is in focus and can be cropped down to be published. But if I use a 20D and a 400mm lens, all I can count on is that I won't have to do much cropping. FWIW, I have made nearly 100% crops of 1D files from a 70-200 2.8 that look peachy, because they are in perfect focus.
So, basically my opinion is that I would rather crop an in focus picture than not have to crop an OOF shot. Not to say that 20Ds aren't capable of good shots - I have gotten plenty myself - but you will have more keepers with a 1 series.
Regarding the 30D to 1 series, it is phenomenal. It is like driving a fine sports car after a minivan. If you can swing it, I would go for a 1D2 and 300 2.8, with a 1.4x TC. If you need the light, you can go with the 300 2.8 and still have great AF. If you need more reach and can sacrifice the light, throw on the TC with a minimal loss of IQ. You can always crop down the 300mm shots. I would think that getting a 300 and 1 series would outweigh any convenience afforded by the 100-400. But I have never used that lens and am only speculating on that.
gtjohnson wrote:
I am happy with the 100-400 for daytime shooting. ...Shooting at night, however, I'm limited to the 70-200 which is my only 2.8 lens.
In affect, you just answered your question.
IMO, for a sports shooter, glass will almost always trump a body. I'd rather have a 400 or 300 f2.8 on a 20d, than a variable aperture lens like the 100-400 on a Mk2n or even a Mk3 at a high school football game under the lights. So much of what a typical sport shooter shoots is in poor lighting conditions. Sometimes they're just horrible, especially at high school and youth levels. That makes fast glass an absolute necessity.
Doesn't matter how quick the AF is if you can't get proper exposure when shooting a high school football game under the lights and you're at 400/f5.6.
Scott Sewell wrote:
Doesn't matter how quick the AF is if you can't get proper exposure when shooting a high school football game under the lights and you're at 400/f5.6.
Very true. What I said above is dependent on you being able to get a proper exposure in the first place.
I shoot both a 40D and 1d2 for sports. Yes, the keeper rate is better on the 1d, but only by a small margin. The 40d does an excellent job. I find a higher keeper rate than I did with a 30D, more noticable in fact between 40 & 30 than 1d and 40.
Scott and Zander - You've really pinpointed my issue. I do shoot a decent amount of football under the lights and if I get the 1.3 crop body I have effectively shortened my already-too-short 200mm by almost 20% (the 100-400 stays home at night). This would almost dictate that I go with longer 2.8 glass. So I really can't go MkII without at least going 300mm 2.8 (for night games). At current prices on the Buy / Sell ... that's at least 4k (combined). Cha ching! ... For that price I can also get into a used 400 2.8 II (no IS) and keep the 40d body.
However, my daytime shooting would be (I assume) substantially upgraded by using the MkII with my existing 100-400 whereas it would only be a slight upgrade to move to the 300 or 400 2.8 in bright light and keep the 40d.
I guess it boils down to deciding which is more important. I suppose I could go with the MkII for daytime and keep the 40d for night games with the 70-200 if I find the reach is not enough with the MKII body. On the other hand, a nice 300 2.8 would be a big plus at night and a good addition during the day (along with the 1.4x II that I already have ...).
Why do I feel like I've run a full lap and I'm back to standing at the start/finish line ...
Thank you all for your input. You've helped crystalize the two options, now I've got to take that and make the call ...
I think you could possibly be able to get the best of both worlds. You should be able to get a 1DMKII for $1,400 to $1,500. After you do so, you could sell both your 40D and your 100-400L. Figure the 40D is worth about $600 and the 100-400L about $1,100. That means you should be able to pick up a 300 f/2.8L (non-IS) for about $1,000 more. This lens will take the 1.4X quite well and should create a 420mm f/4 that is of better quality at the long end than the 100-400L. You could also use it for night games at 300mm and f/2.8 also an upgrade. You can also do this in stages. Buy the camera upgrade first and then buy the lens upgrade as you can afford it. I hope this helps.
