New Body or New Lens

[bebo03]

I currently have a Canon 20D, 28-70 2.8L, 50 1.8, 70-200 4L, and 35-105 USMII. I do weddings, gymnastics, and outdoors sports. I am thinking about getting the new 7D or some prime lens (85 1.8, 135 2.0L,) or the 70-200 2.8 IS. I have always heard invest in lens first then a camera body. I’m looking to spend around 3k to 3.3k. Any input would be great. Since I have never used a IS lens should I save the $$$ and get the 70-200 2.8 NON IS? Any input would be great. I’m just an amateur photographer of about 4 years.

Thanks!

 

[Rifleman1776]

Go for the 70-200 f2.8 IS since it is in your budge.
For the gymnastics and outdoor sports it will be a great tool. You will learn to use it's features.

 

[johnj2803]

is your 70-200 f4 non IS?

if it is, i would take the f4 IS version plus a new body maybe a 7D that is how i would do it if i had your gear and money. or maybe think about going full frame

I think you have a decent lens line up and your body is kind of dated. high iso of the 7D/5D would help you in your work.

The IS would help you a few stops without compromising the DOF when using a narrow one like 2.8.

 

[Overread]

Remember that IS counters handshake only - it has no effect what so ever on subject motion blur. Thus whilst IS can help you get a steady clear shot when using a slower shutter speed whilst handheld (and its fantastic for that aspect esp in teh longer glass) you are still going to need a faster shutter speed to keep motion blur eliminated.
For spots and similar subject when working indoors I would go for the f2.8 version for that extra stop of light - sure it makes depth of field much smaller, but get your shutter speed up.

Also since you have an f4 remember that the 70-200mm L lenses from canon are all pretty much as sharp as each other (there are some differences which show up in lens tests in studios but they are really nitpicking and in the field other considerations will more greatly affect your image quality). Infact in general the f4s are said to be a little sharper at f4 than the f2.8s at f4.

So if you feel you need more shutter speed a better aperture is one way to go for certain and I would also push you toward the IS model for those times when you will benefit from having IS in a lens (ie when not shooting sports).
Howevre you also have to consider ISO usability. I don't know the good ISO use range of the 20D or how it compares to the 7D but certianly having access to higher usable ISOs is another great thing for indoors sports based photography. With your budget you might even be able to reach for one of the 1D line cameras (second hand most likley) which might offer you more in features. I'm suggesting camera bodies since whilst I am another who strongly supports hte idea of glass first - you do already have some very good glass for your subjects so upgrading the body (esp since your working professionaly) is a key consideration to make

 

[Tighearnach]

If I shot weddings and had your lens line up and had 3.3k to spend id

Sell the 70-200 f/4 and the 28-135 USm

This should bring you close enough to 4k

4k ish would then buy me the 5D Mark2 and the 70-200 f 2.8 (non IS)

I am now a happy camper......

 

[IgsEMT]

I do weddings, gymnastics, and outdoors sports

Do you have a backup body? If not, and you're doing all of those, GET A BACK UP BODY.
7D, from various sources, is a questionable item - some people like it, others hate it - research it if it is good for you.

My view on IS/VR. When I got into shooting digital, my glass didn't have that features, in fact one of my lenses today is a 10yr old model w/o VR. Generally, shooting 1/focal length won't be problematic (UNLESS you have shaky hands). Your longest glass is 200mm thus shooting 1/200, ISO400, at f/5.6 with a flash, should be well exposed image (of course it matter what you are shooting).

But if you are shooting weddings, you should have a back up body if don't have on yet.

 

[usayit]

I personally loved the 135mm L but that's just me (I am a prime shooter). I could do almost anything with 24, 50, 85, 135 primes. Everything you mention indicates that you should sell the 70-200 f/4 (a great lens btw) for the max aperture of 70-200 f/2.8. IS is great (I shoot with the 24-105L) BUT it doesn't work to your advantage for the events you listed.

If you are am amateur (non paid weddings specifically) spending on a backup body (IMO) is completely wasteful. If you are paid for weddings, that is a completely different story..

 

[bigtwinky]

does your camera limit you in any way? are you thinking of a body upgrade just because yours is older?

do your lenses limit you?

is there anything that you currently shoot where you say "I wish I could use higher iso" or "i wish i had a longer focal lenght".

find what your needs truly are and go from there.

 

[bebo03]

My 20D is great up to ISO 800 after that noise. So I would love to get the 7D but I do not like buying the first version I would rather wait for more info after 6+ months of shooting not days or weeks. As far as lens length; cheerleader / gymnastics are all over the place so I like the zoom but it is usually low light. Only if Canon made a 70-200mm 1.8 L IS and DSLR without video. My thoughts are if I wanted video I would buy a video camera; give me better IQ and focusing and NO HDMI (my2 cents). Thanks for your input I really appreciate it. P.S the weddings I shoot are for friends or people I know. I don’t make enough for a business just to pay for some equipment.

 

[bigtwinky]

If you think the 7D is too new to buy and you have the cash for the 70-200 f/2.8 IS lens now, I'd go with that. Chances are that the noise levels with the 7D higher than 1600 aren't going to be that good (I haven't seen test shots, just a guess).

So 800 to 1600 is one stop. Going with the lens, you are going from f/4 to f/2.8 which is one stop AND adding in the IS. Plus, its just a kick ass lens. It is heavy though.

The 7D looks all nice, but give Canon a year or so and they will have 2-3 more models...however, your 70-200 f/2.8 IS will still be a keeper. The lens is an investment that you would probably benefit more from right now.

If anything, in the near future after getting the lens, you can look at getting a used 50D or 40D for a slight processor and body upgrade.

 

[DScience]

I currently have a Canon 20D, 28-70 2.8L, 50 1.8, 70-200 4L, and 35-105 USMII. I do weddings, gymnastics, and outdoors sports. I am thinking about getting the new 7D or some prime lens (85 1.8, 135 2.0L,) or the 70-200 2.8 IS. I have always heard invest in lens first then a camera body. I’m looking to spend around 3k to 3.3k. Any input would be great. Since I have never used a IS lens should I save the $$$ and get the 70-200 2.8 NON IS? Any input would be great. I’m just an amateur photographer of about 4 years.

Thanks!

You're gonna get the 7D with the, what seems like, millions of negative posts about it?

 

[Derrel]

Man, with your current lens lineup, your lenses are just begging to be put onto a full-frame body,where their field of view will not be wasted. Your 28-70mm lens on FF would become a wide-angle to short telephoto zoom once again. Your 70-200mm lens would once again be usable indoors from closer ranges like 20 feet. Your 50mm f/1.8 would gain a full two stops' worth of higher ISO capability without the crummy high-ISO look the 20D produces at the extreme end. I own,and still shoot my 20D ...and I own a 5D, the original model.

Honestly, if you're still shooting a 20D and do indoor sports like cheerleading, and indoor events like weddings, get a full-frame camera, and then you already own a professional grade event lens, the 28-70, which was designed o be a wide-to-short-tele, go-to zoom lens on 24x36 capture size.

The 7D is affordable, but used 5D's are available for $1,000 if you shop carefully. With a 3-3.3K budget, glass is the last thing I'd buy right now. Sure, you could get the f/2.8 70-200, but it'd be better to have *real* high-speed lenses like the 85/1.8 and 135/2-L for indoor use, especially on full frame, where the lenses can actually be *deployed* at normal shooting distances in gyms and churches and inside of regular buildings. if you had a FF body, the 50mm 1.8 would become *practical* indoors, an 85/1.8 would also become *usable* indoors, and so on. I see this as a need for a new body to bring the lenses you already have back to where they were designed to be shot--with their field of view NOT cropped-off by a small sensor.

 

[johnj2803]

I currently have a Canon 20D, 28-70 2.8L, 50 1.8, 70-200 4L, and 35-105 USMII. I do weddings, gymnastics, and outdoors sports. I am thinking about getting the new 7D or some prime lens (85 1.8, 135 2.0L,) or the 70-200 2.8 IS. I have always heard invest in lens first then a camera body. I’m looking to spend around 3k to 3.3k. Any input would be great. Since I have never used a IS lens should I save the $$$ and get the 70-200 2.8 NON IS? Any input would be great. I’m just an amateur photographer of about 4 years.

Thanks!

You're gonna get the 7D with the, what seems like, millions of negative posts about it?

note that there are a lot of positive reviews about them too