The glass or the body?

BBones

Well I finally have enough money to buy one of two things I need for 2006's race season...a 300 IS L 2.8 or the 1DMark2N.

Presently, I am shooting a lot of people/clubs in the off season, would the Mark2 offer me better features/response then my existing 20D in low light situations?

OR

Should I go for the lens and shelf it for the next couple of months (I go to Maui in February and will be taking pictures of the humpback whales from a boat).

Right now my lens bag is pretty low...a 70-200 IS L 2.8 and a 50mm 1.8.

gtc

nice decision to make
the crop factor of the 20d would make that 300 IS L even more effective for what you are doing.

are you being held back by the 20d in any other way?

BBones wrote:

Well I finally have enough money to buy one of two things I need for 2006's race season...a 300 IS L 2.8 or the 1DMark2N.

Presently, I am shooting a lot of people/clubs in the off season, would the Mark2 offer me better features/response then my existing 20D in low light situations?

OR

Should I go for the lens and shelf it for the next couple of months (I go to Maui in February and will be taking pictures of the humpback whales from a boat).

Right now my lens bag is pretty low...a 70-200 IS L 2.8 and a 50mm 1.8.

BBones

Speed. A lot of what I shoot (motorcycle racing) is split second type of work. the 8.5 FPS and the AI Servo is better on the 1DMk2N then the 20D.

Better clarification, 300 IS L 2.8 w/ 1.4xTC

pathfinder

Get both! :

JimM

Go for the glass!!!

gubbs

Both or glass

Andy

I'm normally a "get the glass" person - but - you've pointed out before, Bones - that you "need da speed" and if 8fps means you get more money shots then I'd say get the body - and inside of 1/2 a new season you'll be able to get the new glass, too!

ed_h

I would go for the glass. While on Maui you should check out Honolua Bay , it may still be breaking in Feb. IMO one of the prettiest surf spots in the world (had some of my best surf there while on honeymoon early 60's)with good picture taking opportunists from the cliffs.
ed

DanielB

ed_h wrote:

I would go for the glass. While on Maui you should check out Honolua Bay , it may still be breaking in Feb. IMO one of the prettiest surf spots in the world (had some of my best surf there while on honeymoon early 60's)with good picture taking opportunists from the cliffs.
ed

go for the body! then you could get the 28-135 IS for your lower zoom bracket.

*wish i had enough money to afford either of those* lol.

binghott

go for the body, you need the speed!

DoctorIt

BBones wrote:

Presently, I am shooting a lot of people/clubs in the off season, would the Mark2 offer me better features/response then my existing 20D in low light situations?

Isn't this a much bigger function of the glass?



My motto is always: fast glASS

Only you know if the frame rate and AF drive are really holding you back. But let me make some points... Winger (here on dgrin) had a mkII when she was shooting for pay here at the university, but sold it when that position expired. She's still shooting damn near every home event (for "fun"), and I'd say her hockey and basketball shots haven't suffered at all by going back to only the 20d. In fact, I'd say she gets better at each game.

You have the practice now, and to be honest, its a fairly controlled situation (the laps don't change much each time around). With good setup, you should be ready to shoot each time they come around, so what if you shoot more frames? Make the ones you shoot count!

Also, don't forget, as Andy hinted at, the mkII will only make your 200mm lens shorter (1.3 v 1.6). I'd think you'll benefit more from the longer glass first, then be able to upgrade to the faster body when you start producing some nice results with the big white lens.

Just my .002

JimM

DoctorIt wrote:

Isn't this a much bigger function of the glass?



My motto is always: fast glASS

Only you know if the frame rate and AF drive are really holding you back. But let me make some points... Winger (here on dgrin) had a mkII when she was shooting for pay here at the university, but sold it when that position expired. She's still shooting damn near every home event (for "fun"), and I'd say her hockey and basketball shots haven't suffered at all by going back to only the 20d. In fact, I'd say she gets better at each game.

You have the practice now, and to be honest, its a fairly controlled situation (the laps don't change much each time around). With good setup, you should be ready to shoot each time they come around, so what if you shoot more frames? Make the ones you shoot count!

Also, don't forget, as Andy hinted at, the mkII will only make your 200mm lens shorter (1.3 v 1.6). I'd think you'll benefit more from the longer glass first, then be able to upgrade to the faster body when you start producing some nice results with the big white lens.

Just my .002

Extremely well put. I agree 100%

mercphoto

BBones wrote:

Well I finally have enough money to buy one of two things I need for 2006's race season...a 300 IS L 2.8 or the 1DMark2N.

Tough call. But I will tell you this. I'm shooting karts now with a 20D and a 300/2.8. I was using a 70-200/2.8. Personally I'd rather have the lens than the body but it is a tough call.

BBones

Looks like the glass will be the winner. Though I think I will wait until the end of this month to make it through Christmas and see if anyone drops their price. It wouldn't be much I know, but I know right now NO ONE is going to be dropping their price on that lens this close to Christmas