7d body or 70-200 lens

[joe_eames]

<p>I currently use a canon 40D (I have 2 40D bodies). I have some cash and am looking at a 70-200 2.8 II IS USM or a 7D body. Can't do both. Lens I currently use are Tamron 18-270 f/3.5-6.3, Canon 50mm f/1.8 , Canon 35mm f/2.0 and Tamron 10-24 f/3.5-4.5. What am i to do?</p>

[peter_j2]

<p>What is wrong with your current setup?</p>

[joe_eames]

<p>Nothing really. Just looking to upgrade. Its the photography addiction. </p>

[peter_j2]

<p>Sell your Tamron. Get the 70-200. Spend money on glass first.</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>I say the 70-200/2.8. You'll realize a more significant gain in your photographic capabilities from the addition of the lens than the 7D.</p>

<p>The diff between that and the Tamron 18-270 is night and day at longer lengths. Optically, speed, AF, you name it. I use the Tamron (VC ver.) all the time when I only can carry one lens, but the 70-200/2.8 blows it out of the water (within the 70-200 range of course :-) ) in ALL respects. </p>

[david israel]

<p>Go with the glass!</p>

[brian_wallace5]

<p>Get the 70-200 f2.8, no doubt about it. Keep the Tamron if you want a general all purpose lens but there will be a lot you can do with the 70-200 f2.8 that you can't do with the Tamron. </p>

[nathangardner]

<p>why not get a used ver. I of the 70-200mm and save yourself over $1000? Then you can sell a 40D and possibly the 18-270mm and get both.</p>

[pto189]

<p>I think you should wait. The 70-200 2.8 II came out at $2499, dropped to $2069 with $200 rebate when I bought it in last October, was $2269 last month, and now is back to retail price of $2499. However, the lens is perfect in all aspects.</p>

[mbkissel]

<p>Joe, if your decision is driven just by the desire to have some nice new gear, then either the body or the lens may satisfy your itch. Like others here, I would also recommend spending the money on the glass first since that will affect IQ. At some point "down the road", you are much more likely to get rid of the current camera body than the good glass.</p>

[ed_v.]

<p>I would get the lens first--the body will drop in price eventually but the lens may not. If you're willing to, just wait for another Canon rebate on the lens.</p>

[mike_hitchen]

<p>Lens.</p>

[mwtphoto]

<p>Hi Joe<br>

I am currently selling my 40D, having just replaced it with a 7D. I too was looking at the 70-200, but the 2.8 non IS version. I think the 7D is good improvement over the 40D and so far I think I made the right choice. I will now sell some of my other lens and equipment if the need for the 70-200 persists. good luck with your decision.</p>

 

[bfmelton]

<p>I have a 40D, a 7D, and L glass. When I put the L glass on my 40D, the IQ improvement is striking when compared to kit.</p>

<p>I have the 70-200 2.8 IS L and love it.</p>

<p>Go with the glass.</p>

[davidfarquhar]

<p>Although I don't have this combination, I've just bought a 17-55 IS for my old 400D. The difference compared with kit lens is immense, so I'd be suggesting the lens here as well</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>Glass first. However, I recommend a used Canon EF 70-200/2.8 L (non-IS) AND either a used 7D or a used 5D II.</p>

[randallfarhy]

<p>The 7D is an excellent body, but unless you are specifically looking to increase the performance (speed and accuracy) of your autofocus, go with the improved glass first. The 7D does has improved processors and a host of other feature improvs, but bodies have a much shorter improvement span on the technolgy curve. Good glass will last a lifetime.</p>