Hi, I currently have a low-end setup of EOS 500N (Rebel G) and basic zoom lens. I'm ready to upgrade my equipment to match my required results ie sharper, faster, longer focal length(if required) results. I'm finding myself in a bit of a pickle... I want the 70-200 f2.8 L lens and am ready to purchase, but I'm not sure about using this with the 500N.. should I upgrade the body first or will the 500N suffice for decent shots until I'm ready to buy a better body? I've never used a higher spec camera and I don't know just how important a better body is in reality.

Would I be wasting my time with a great lens and entry-level body combination???

Thanks for any advice.

Mic.

-- Mic (belfastbhoy@hotmail.com), February 04, 2002

Answers

Its the Lens not the camera that makes the picture look nice. Though I would caution using a big lens like the 70-200 f2.8 lens on a Rebel G since the Rebel has a plasic lens mount. Not to say the lens won't work just make sure the lens is holding the camera not the other way around.

-- Jake F (JakeF@nowhere.net), February 04, 2002.

Just an idea; for the price of the 70-200 f2.8, you cold buy a used 70-200 f4, PLUS an EOS 3 body. Just as sharp as the f2.8, but one stop slower.

-- J.Horton (masssalt@yahoo.com), February 04, 2002.

The REbel is a fine body. Since you don't give a reason for needing an upgrade, one can only assume you want to. There really is no reason for this as the Rebel does everything you might need a camera to do.

For lense, I suggest a 28-135 Is or a 50 and 100 prime. Or a similar combination to suit you needs. The zoom you might find to be heavy and a bit much for the price.

-- Chris Gillis (chris@photogenica.net), February 05, 2002.

The Rebel is a fine body. Since you don't give a reason for needing an upgrade, one can only assume you want to. There really is no reason for this as the Rebel does everything you might need a camera to do.

For lense, I suggest a 28-135 Is or a 50 and 100 prime. Or a similar combination to suit you needs. The zoom you might find to be heavy and a bit much for the price.

-- Chris Gillis (chris@photogenica.net), February 05, 2002.

It will work, but hanging a 3 pound lens on a 12 ounce body with a plastic lens mount does not sound like a good idea.

A used Elan II or new Elan 7 would be much better. These are more robust cameras with stainless steel lens mounts.

EOS 3 would be great, but more money.

-- Kenneth Katz (socks@bestweb.net), February 05, 2002.

I have a Rebel 2000 that sometimes is used with my 70-200/2.8L lens. The results are the same as with my other EOS cameras. The plastic lens mount should pose no problem as long as the lens is supported when shooting (I'm almost always on a tripod with the lens supporting the weight). If you're getting pleasing results with the camera, you will be very happy with the results you will get with the 70- 200/2.8L.

-- Lee (Leemarthakiri@sport.rr.com), February 06, 2002.

Unless you need the f/2.8 aperture, I would strongly consider the 70- 200/4L. This is a very sharp and beautiful lens. It is significantly cheaper and lighter than the 70-200/2.8L while being every bit as sharp (some consider it to be sharper) as the the 70- 200/2.8L. If you do any amount of travel, hiking, or walking about for any period of time, you will appreciate the lightness of the 70- 200/4L. After awhile the 70-200/2.8L gets to be a pain to carry particularly if you don't need the speed. There is a 600 gram difference between the two. There is also something like a $500 difference in price, too.

Many people decide to get the 70-200/2.8L even though they only occasionally need the fast aperture for such things as portraits with good background blur. Well, if that's the case get a 70-200/4L plus an 85/1.8 or 100/2 for portraits. It's actually cheaper, lighter and more versatile. On the other hand, if you shoot lots of fast action in subdued light where you consistently and regularly need a f/2.8 on a telephoto zoom, then do get the 70-200/2.8L.

-- Peter Phan (pphan01@hotmail.com), February 06, 2002.