Help decide between an upgrade to a 20d and 300/400 IS lens

frankiscool · Oct 11, 2004

My wife has tentatively approved either an upgrade from the 300d to a 20d, or a 300 or maybe even a 400mm IS lens; both of those should cost around 600-800 after selling my 300d (estimate). I'm kind of torn.

I shoot mostly martial arts tournaments and events like that, and sometimes I'm shooting from far away, so I would like to have the lens for those times. Plus, you never know when you might need a long-range lense like that, like on vac recently shooting ships.

On the other hand, I'd like to move to the 20d which has more capabilities, esp. if I ever hope to start doing gigs on the side.

Thoughts? Thanks

PrimaryCanary · Oct 11, 2004

My suggestion would be to get the lens. It sounds like you would definetly use it. Getting the 20D would be very nice; however, you'd still be in the same boat with being far away at tournaments because the camera is sold with lens kits that are of moderate focal length (18-55mm, 17-85mm?). If you get the lens, you can use it now with your camera, then next month, after doing much yard work and completing a few dozen honey-do lists, you'll be able to get the 20D and you'll have a righteous lens to hang off the front of it.

Just my thoughts, good luck with the purchase either way.

frankiscool · Oct 11, 2004

Primary,

I'm sorry, I did neglect to mention that I would be buying the body only, since I have a 18-55 and also a 200mm Sigma lens at the moment... the 200mm is pretty good, but i'd like something even stronger, plus it isn't IS.

Still think I should get the lens? Thanks for the info.

Jovian · Oct 12, 2004

100%, get the lens. The 300d is the dig. rebel, right? Yeah, a 20d is a good idea, but its not something that you can't shoot with for a while until you save up for the new 20d. lenses should always be priotiry IMO. when you get in that situation where you need it... you'll be glad you did.

PrimaryCanary · Oct 13, 2004

Frank,
I think I would still go for the lens first. Either way, you better post some of those karate-kick-to-the-head pics!

TomRussell · Oct 13, 2004

to me, 'upgrading' from a 300d to a 20d seems more like a sidestep than a step forward, if you get my drift.

Sure, you get an extra 2 million pixels - but what does that add up to in terms of resolution? Next to nothing. You can get good 12x18 prints off a drebel, do you really need more?

Build quality - sure, you get a slightly more rugged magnesium alloy body, but is it really worth laying out another $999 usd or however much the 20d is over there to get just that?

The only other possible advantages i can see are the 5fps/23 frame burst (significantly more than the 300d) and the 9 point AF as opposed to 7 point.

Personally, now i have my 300d, i'm not planning on upgrading until the resolution at least doubles (notice i'm talking resolution here - not megapixels - meaning an image 6144x4096 or a 25 megapixel camera!)
or the 10megapixel cameras with the magnesium/good body build quality come right down in price - the sensor is still stellar on the 300d and its still a very nice camera.

I'd advise you put your money into your lens collection - as then you can always upgrade to a newer, better body when it actually becomes fiscally viable to do so.

just my 0.02$.