I would like to pose a dilema I have.
Current setup, 1 x Canon 50D 1 x 70 - 200mm F2.8L 1 x 18 - 50mm F2.8 1 x 10 - 20mm F4 - F5.6, 1 x 1.4 Teleconvertor, genuine Grip, Flash and other filters and stuff.
I tend to shot mainly landscape, but I am trying to build my skill level at Rugby Union, as my young sons play.
I also started this year shooting the senior grades with some success, but with the APS-C body and the EF lens (70 - 200) I find it a touch long at the short end, if that makes sense. I have had lot's of people offer to buy my shots, so I would like to use this to my advantage. I will concentrate more on the Rugby in the next year +, and may-be branch out to more sports.
I have an opportunity to grab a 1D Mk11, which I feel would work really well with the 70 - 200L, leaving me with the 50D and the short lens for close work (all sport shooting in mind here)
Then, when the bank balance bounces back, grab the 24 - 105mm F4.
Just wondering if my pondering is making sense. I was, as some will remember sold on the 300mm L Prime, I hired one and found on the APS-C body that it was very limited when trying to shoot close, the DOF was a mess, but at the longer distance work, it reveled in it. So I would love to hear/read some of your thoughts on the matter.
Will the 1D Mk11 do what I wan't? is the AF (in servo modes) going to be quicker than my 50D when using the 70 - 200mm L? or should I look at another body series. The FPS is around 8ish from memory and the sensor is around 8 mp, my 50D is slightly slower at FPS, but larger sensor mp.
Do I have "D MK" envy??
Thanks in advance.
PS, Darren, I wont be buying, as you put it, "Nikon goodness" Thanks mate.