Invest in a new camera or a new lens?

I am an amateur photographer at the point of either purchasing a used Canon 1D

Mark ii (8.5 fps) or a used 300 mm f/2.8 USM (non-IS). I shoot mostly high

school baseball in daylight, and some basketball indoors. I currently shoot with

a Canon 20D (5 fps); and have the following lenses: a Canon 70-200 f/2.8L, a

1.4x teleconverter, a 24-70 f/2.8L an 85 f/1.8, and a 50 f/1.4. What would you

recommend?

 

Thanks in advance,

Bob.

The lens. 8.5 fps will gain you very little and the crop factor will lose you reach. There might be some gain in terms of AF performance, but it's probably not critical. The lens will open up more shooting opportunities, both as 300 f/2.8 and 420 f/4 with the TC. The lens won't change in value much: a 1D Mk ii might be available cheaper in a matter of months - it's nearly time for more serious 1 series upgrades to be announced - and you might prefer the successor anyway in due course.

What's the problem with your current gear?

I'd go for the new body. The Mark II is about as good as it gets for sports. I'm not as familiar with the Canon line, but I assume you probably will get a better, faster AF engine, too.

 

The glass you have now is excellent. The 70-200 with the 1.4X will give you most of the reach you'd get with the 300 with a slight loss of speed. Plus, if you live in a large enough city, you can always rent a 300 when you really need one.

New body. I shoot sports and more fps is always better, as far as I'm concerned.

I have the same equipment you do. Go for the camera. The Canon 1D Mark II N is worh it's weight in gold, especially with the 8.5 fps and its sharpness and color differences.

Before DSLR's the advice was always "Get the best glass you can!"

 

That advice still holds true. The 20D is a totally capable camera. Yes, the 1D gives you faster AF, better build, and so on. But look at what you need. Is the 20D holding you back or are your lenses?

 

Are you shooting more indoors or outdoors? If you are shooting indoors more, go with the 300 2.8. It is great for down court action in basketball, isolating athletes in gymnastics, and a great volleyball and wrestling lens. Shooting outdoors, it mates to a 1.4x great for that extra reach with field sports and combined with the 20D sensor size will really allow you to get into players faces.

 

Another option that you might want to consider is getting both a 1D and a 300 2.8 and keeping your 20D. No, I am not talking crazy. Pick up a used original 1D and a Sigma 120-300 2.8. The 1D still is a awesome camera and with outdoor sports in the daylight, and even evening and night football with a flash, it is great. Indoors, if you get to the point that you strobe, it, with its 1/500th X-Sync is awesome and even if you do not strobe, at high ISO, correctly exposed images with a little noise reduction still produce great files. And if noise is too much, you still have your 20D. Also, the 120-300 is a sleeper lens. I picked a used one (still with the new smell attached to it) for $1600 and was quite surprised with it. It is no Canon L, but it focuses pretty darn quick and is almost as sharp, if not as sharp as my Canon 70-200 2.8. It takes my Canon 1.4x TC very well and if you have a lot of light, a 2X is not out of the question, but will slow it down a bit. Plus it zooms down to 120. No Canon lens can go from 300 to 120 and retain a aperture of 2.8.

 

Since you said yourself you are an amateur photographer, you can look at other avenues than the MkII and 300L. I shoot for wire services and I had some shots picked up by ESPN with the 1D 120-300 combo and the local AP staffer is using the 120-300 almost on a daily basis...

The glass hands down. Baseball needs a little more reach than football or basketball and 300/2.8 is almost enough. If you can swing it, get a third party version of this combo and upgrade the camera without selling the 20D. Tamron and Sigma both make good ones.

 

Rick H.

You have not explained what shortcomings you are experiencing but I know my preference would be for the Canon EF 300mm f2.8 L.

 

 

Having said that I don't know if your 70-200 is not sharp enough, or too slow with the converter, or are you not pleased with your timing and need the 8.5 fps.

 

 

I tend to believe that the true usefullness of high fps is over-rated since I do quite well, as an amateur, using a manual focus 400/2.8 with on a 10D 3 fps. When I used to have 5 fps with film I could never afford to actually use it and I guess I trained myself with respect to timing.

 

 

I'd be very hesitant in spending the megabucks for an "old" 1DII which needs to catch up with the sensor of the lowly XTi, and which will most certainly drop significantly in price when it is replaced this year.

Bob, very tempting to get that Mark II, huh? Being that you already have a camera, why not get the lens. I know it's tough 'cause I was going through the same thing but needed a 300mm 2.8 lens to cover baseball and football so that's what I got. I also use it for basketball, too. I still want a 1D MKII (or whatever new body comes out in the future) but that will have to wait. In the meantime I'm still shooting (20D) and I have my 300mm 2.8.

Frankly, I am confused. I understand the need for 300 in baseball. But basketball? Where are you shooting from the bleachers? I shoot from the sidelines with a 85 or 50 prime and crop the shots. I prefer the 50 1.4 because it gives me great light. Let's face it as the action comes down court, you need a shorter lens not a longer one. If you shoot opposite ends, you get the back of the player as opposed to the faces.

 

Remember I am shooting basketball not baseball. I assume in the baseball world the 300 would help. But my preference would likely be to get a second 20D body so I could use two lens platforms on the fly.

 

That said, I have the same equipment you have and I love it as it is. My problems would be body based: faster focus, better color, more fps, rain resistance. That said, I guess your path would be body not lens.

Thom, the 300 works great for basketball. You have to think about what you are doing. If I am covering a guy playing defense on the opposite end of the court the 300 gives me the reach I need to get some good shots...and not of his back. And yes, sometimes I do shoot from the bleachers. I don't always wait for the action to get back down to my side of the court before I start shooting.

<center><img src="http://www.rolandsimmonsphoto.com/blog/ksingler03.jpg"/></br>shot with 300mm<center>

Nice shot. I will try that next time. I generally focus on the ball handler.

 

I usually shoot from the sidelines of the end of the court(2 7). I prefer the sidelines (3 4).

 

<img src="http://thom.pantazi.com/basketball-court-fixed.gif" border="0">