Thinking about making a big equipment switch

[lkWinnipesaukee]

Hey guys,

I currently have the gear below. I shoot a lot of sports, so I would like a camera that has a better AF system and a higher burst rate. I was thinking of a used 20D. The metal body would be a plus.

Does this sound smart:
Sell the XT body, vertical battery grip, 50mm f/1.8 (never use it) and the 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 (all in like-new condition)....

...and get a used 20D body and either a Sigma 28-70 f/2.8 or a Canon 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS?

Sound like a plan? If so, which lens should I get? I really like the IS and the little bit of extra focal length, but a 2.8 would be nice glass to have. This would just be a walkaround lens (walkaround=dimly lit school, outside shooting scenes for quality). We will also be doing a lot of boating in the summer, and it gets rough, so I need either a hugh shutter speed or IS.

Any other advice or input would be greatly appreciated in this stressful lol transition in my life.


Thanks!

 

[usayit]

1) What exactly is it about the XT that makes you want to switch to the 20D?

2) How important is the extra reach? 70mm versus 135mm?

I personally would probably keep the XT, the handgrip ( I shoot mostly in portrait), and 50mm f1.8 (I use it alot and you are not going to get much back for it). Sell the 28-105mm, get the Canon 28-135mm IS, and use what money is left over for another fast prime.

Learn to use the 50mm f1.8 in low light... it still blows the f2.8 zoom away in low/available light. The 28-135mm IS is a high bang for the buck lens and I know for a fact that it produces excellent results. It is a nice walk around lens. You will take a big hit $$$ going from XT to the 20D. IMO, better money spent on a lens.


EDIT:

I just realized that you already have 70-200mm f2.8 Sigma lens. So why are you considering the 28-135mm for its extra focal length?

 

[-spam-]

You will take a big hit $$$ going from XT to the 20D. IMO, better money spent on a lens.

Not really, I know someone who sold their 350d + grip (XT) and went to a 20d and it didnt cost them anything. I recently made the move from a 400d + grip (XTi) and came out a few hundred dollars ahead.

I reckon, sell what you have. But keep the 50mm. And then get the 20d and sigma 2.8 :thumbup:

 

[Mike_E]

Ummm, if you are going to be boating, get something that's not allergic to water (lens too). Or at least be able to seal it up!

mike

 

[lkWinnipesaukee]

Thanks for the replies guys. Let me try to answer everyone's posts.

I want to upgrade to the 20D because I feel when shooting sports, I am limited to the 3 FPS frame rate. I am also frustrated with the auto focus system (only 7 points and slower than the 20D).
Additionally, I have made about 6000 shutter actuations in the 2 months that I have had it. I feel like if I shoot for a year the shutter has the possibility of dying on me, versus the better 20D shutter which is good for twice as long.

It just seems like a better camera all around.

As for the lens, I feel that a 70mm lens would probably limit me compared to a 135mm. I find myself shooting at 105mm a lot. The reason I would want to "overlap" focal lengths is because the Sigma 70-200 at 3lb is NOT a walkaround lens, especially for my scrawny 16 year old body. I also think that the IS would help a lot on the boat, but whether it is better than a faster shutter speed at f/2.8, I don't know.

I will also keep the 50mm.

 

[lkWinnipesaukee]

Anyone else?

 

[usayit]

Not really, I know someone who sold their 350d + grip (XT) and went to a 20d and it didnt cost them anything. I recently made the move from a 400d + grip (XTi) and came out a few hundred dollars ahead.
:

Considering the price range of the lenses the OP has and is considering a few hundred dollars is considerable. I've been consistently seeing a $200-$300 difference between the two cameras. Thats more than 1/2 the cost for both lenses considered as well as the cost of some Canon primes.

I say your friend worked out a good deal..... but I don't really think it is the norm.

 

[usayit]

Ah.. now that you mentioned sports... the body change does make some more sense...

Shorter focal range with faster max aperture... versus
Longer focal range, IS, but slower max aperture...

 

[lkWinnipesaukee]

Well, I had mentioned it in my original post. :greenpbl:


Also, yes, a couple hundred is considerable for a high school student.

The Sigma 28-70 f/2.8 is around $300 and the Canon 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS is around $400 new.

 

[firemedic0135]

I would ditch the IS idea unless you are shooting low light boating shots.
Shooting the 20D you could bump the iso or if you get a fast lens just open it up.I shoot mainly action and even shot inside a poorly lit church with my 70-200 2.8 the other night and have never needed IS.Of course I have never shot with IS on a lens so I cant say I dont like it ,but have never been shooting and thought "man I wish I had IS right now"

Oh and go for the switch gets my vote.I switched to the 30D from sony just for the AF and 5fps and have could not be happier with my choice.The 20D/30D IMHO is the best bargain out there.

 

[lkWinnipesaukee]

I decided to get the Canon 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS because of the extended focal length, IS, and the fact that the Sigma doesn't have HSM. If I am in low light, I can use the 50mm or a flash, and if I need a shallow DOF, I can use the 70-200 f/2.8 or the 50mm f/1.8.