I keep changing my mind on what you should do. Don't you have a 50D now? I think most people would say keep the 50D and start working on getting some better lenses. Partly because lenses have more say in how good your images are than bodies do, and partly because lenses are a longer term investment while bodies come and go every few years. The 5DII will be old in a year, but the 70-200 f/2.8 mark II will be a hell of a lens for a very long time.

~5 years i estimate, unless Nikon comes up with something that is > the 70-200 2.8 MK II

Guys in yellow are sporting Nikon jackets


Which reminds me I won't have this lens for the contest. Currently in the shop

This post was edited by onepagememory on Nov 13 2010 10:34am

Then why are all but three of them shooting Canons? Also none of those are 70-200s...much more expensive glass there.

edit: actually the guy with the black lens hood could be shooting a 70-200

This post was edited by bergmann on Nov 13 2010 12:13pm

Because Canon > Nikon, duh

Even Nikon reps use canon. That should tell you something.

Ofc the 2 black lenses are Sigma

This post was edited by bialator on Nov 13 2010 12:52pm

Or a Canon telephoto with a black protective cover?

nope I have a 1000D. that´s why I want a body upgrade so much.

Ohhh...I thought you had a 50D for some reason. Yes, I would say that your body is also limiting you right now. There's no way around it, these things cost money. I still say lenses are important though. Do you have a set budget yet? I know you want to do portraits and stuff, and people like primes for that. But collecting primes will be too expensive for you up front. You might shoot for a used 5D + 70-200 f/4 IS. That'll run you about $2,000. Plus some accessories that you'll need, lighting is important obviously, and you're looking at $3,000 minimum. I'm don't know much about studio lighting...others would be able to help you out there.

the question still is, used 5D Mk I or 5D Mk II >.<

lenses are quite obvious. I think the most useful ones would be the 70-200mm f4 L IS USM and the 24-70mm f2.8 L USM

This post was edited by RecoveryChannel on Nov 14 2010 07:58am

do you absolutely need to shoot high iso? if not, mkI will be good enough. mkI has really good iq with lower iso levels and i dont think you would see any difference with low iso to mkII. compared to new cheap models like 1000d or 50d it has way better iso handling and noise looks much better