Opinion Question No Wrong Answer

[ny_surfer]

I have a Canon 20D,
I have a 24-70 2.8 L lens and a 300 2.8 L lens.
I primarily shoot my kids, but will do some wildlife and surfing pics.
Where is the money better spent.
New 40D or 70-200 L lens.

I can't have both.
On the one hand the 40D has great reviews, on the other hand the lens will never be outdated so to speak.

Just fishing for more confusion.

Thanks

[NashvilleMike]

I'm on the other side of the brand divide, but I've generally been a proponent that excellent glass makes a bit more of a difference than incremental body upgrades - a framed 16x20 made with a Nikon D80 and 200/2 AFS lens competes every bit as well as more recent prints of the same size with a D2X or D300. BUT - in my case this was at base ISO, camera on tripod, careful shooting discpline used.

The 2 mp difference between the 20D and the 40D isn't going to make that much of a difference, but some of the other features of the 40D (improved AF system, better shutter lag) *may* lead or enable you to take better images, dependent of course on your subject matter. So if there are functional aspects of your 20D that bother you and you think you really are being hindered by these aspects, then the improvement to the 40D may be your ticket. If not (eg: you're happy with the 20D performance), then I'd say it's the glass that you should go for.

-m

[ny_surfer]

I think that you are probably right, and I am leaning towards the lens, however, the nice lcd on the back and claimed better contrast in low light are getting in the way.

[AndyF2]

Another way to look at this.  When will the 40D be replaced, and if you can buy one of the two on your wish list, when will you be able to buy the other one?  If it's 2 years for instance, and the 40D happens to be replaced around that time, you'd be further ahead to buy the lens now and buy the next-gen 40D in your next budget window instead of buying the 40D now and seeing it superceded in only a couple of years.
That logic may be a bit compelling, but if there features in the 20D limiting you, I haven't considered them.  Be strategic  and I hope the plan works!
Andy

[ny_surfer]

I think the lens is probably the better purchase. The 20D works very well for me, you could always get a better camera, but I think in the long run, the glass is a better investment. I don't think that the glass gets outdated when you get the the L series lenses.

That being said, why can't we all just be rich and not have to make these terrible decisions.

[Ken Doo]

You have a HUGE focal length gap between the 24-70 and the 300.  Depending on your subject matter, if you are simply missing the ability to capture shots because of this gap, it does not matter what the quality of the camera body is, whether 20D, 40D, 5D, or 1DS Mark III.  You just simply missed the opportunity for the shot.

That being said, there is a substantial increase in image quality from the current generation of camera bodies over the 20D---and arguably a much great increase in quality than say the "nominal" jump in quality from the 1Ds Mark II to the current Mark III.

I'd suggest filling the focal length gap first (the 300mm is not exactly a good walkaround lens for your kids either...) and then get a new camera body at the first opportunity....

[Hank]

Lenses are forever and bodies are next week's ebay fodder.  We have 40 year old Nikon lenses that we still use regularly, but we've gone through dozens of bodies in that same span.

If you can live with your current body, get the lens.

[Dansk]

Lens

[tandlh]

Lens.  If you buy the best lens, you'll never need to upgrade.  I started with a Rebel XT.  Even though I now have a 40D and a 5D, I see absolutely nothing wrong with the XT.  It makes great images and I still sell photos made with it.  My glass is 10-11 years old and has been through the Elan IIe, XT, and now my new ones.  I'll probably be shooting the same glass in another 10 years when the Canon super duper 1ds Mk LX is out .  70-200 is a great focal length, go for it and don't get caught up in the camera, mega millions pixel hype.  Plus, I have a suspicion that somewhere between 8-10 mega pixels is the sweet spot for image quality on a 1.6 crop sensor.  Buy the lens and enjoy making images.

Ted

[Geoff Wittig]

Go for the lens, for sure.

1) Canon's 40D is a nice camera, but with the latest entry level 'Rebel' sporting 12 megapixels and with rebates available, I'd have to think a "45D" is coming any day now.

2) The 70-200 f:4 IS is a seriously sharp lens which will never go out of date. If you can stretch to the 70-200 f:2.8 IS (and can carry the beast), so much the better. Mine has always been my most used lens right after the 24-70 f:2.8 for landscapes.

[daethon]

It depends on your needs.  

The typical answer is to get the lens.  But depending on the type of work that you are doing, and what you are missing the camera might be the better idea.  

I just went from a 20D to a 40D.  I have a few more lenses though.  


For me, my 20D was nearly 4 years old, had been in the ocean twice and wasn't working quite well anymore.  I wanted the LiveView (Macro Shooting), Anti-Dust (not a big deal, but I've found it useful at times), larger LCD (again for Macro), Faster FPS, I swear that I'm getting better color out of the 40D, but most people haven't seen a difference, I also needed a backup camera for trips.  

I had been waiting for the 5D replacement, but after it didn't come out in the spring, I had to move on the 40D.  When the 5D replacement comes out (or 6-12 months after it does), I will probably purchase one of them, and convert the 20D into an IR camera.  


People have raised good points about the missing focal length, but with that type of glass, I'm sure that you have been coping for a while with the disparity, if you've been missing shots, then go for the lens.  

In your situation, if it were me, and my 20D was in good condition, I'd probably opt for option 3 and either purchase the 135MM f/2 or the 200MM.  (which if i stay within the constraints of the question, that'd equate to buying the 70-200).

[JDClements]

Get the glass.

[ny_surfer]

I think the Glass has it. I will in all likelyhood get the 70-200 L IS.
It's heavy but  

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

If you are photographing mostly outdoors or in good light, go for the f/4 rather than the f/2.8. The f/4 is very easy to walk around with, weight-wise. Most definitely get IS in either lens.

I have an excellent pre-IS 70-200/4 that I now hardly ever use since I got a 24-105 IS. Having IS on the 70-200 would make a huge difference, IMHO. I'm saving my pennies to sell and trade up.

[ny_surfer]

IS, anything less is uncivilized!

[mahleu]

Compromise. Moving to a 30D won't cost much. So you get a larger lcd and more recent technology and then get the lens.

The 40D does have a higher frame rate which would be useful for your sports work.

[macgyver]

The frame rate of the 40d wont help you any more but the AF tracking will. It's much better in my experience. That being said, buy the glass. Soon you will be able to pick up used 40d's for not a lot. I wouldnt buy a 30d, its no different than the 20.

[dwdallam]

Lens. No brainer for all the reasons covered.

[cherokee]

It has all been said so here is another vote for the lens.

[BJL]

As a variant on an earlier suggestion,
1) get the 70-200/4 IS,
and
2) with the savings compared to the 70-200 f/2.8 IS, do something about your limited wide angle coverage (only to 38mm equiv.) Maybe add a 10-22 EF-S, or even trade the 24-70/2.8 for a 17-55/2.8 EF-S.

Unless you are avoiding EF-S lenses, though I cannot imagine why, given that your current proposed bodies are both EF-S and a body in the larger 35mm format EF mount would hamper the telephoto reach of the 300/2.8 for surfing and wildlife.