Quote:
Hi All,

I am considering purchasing either

1.) Used 1D MK ii with a new EF 24-85mm lens
2.) New 40D with a similiar L glass lens

If you are shooting sports primarily, the 1D MkII is the clear choice. 8.5 frames per second with a huge buffer for long sequences. Other than that, I can see no argument for it. It was introduced in early January 2004, so it is nearly two generations back in technology. It was likely more robustly built than the D40, but use in the meantime may have nullified that advantage - if indeed it is an advantage. Most digital cameras - other than in the hands of working shooters - become obsolete long before they are worn out.

Of course, the same glass works on both bodies, but one needs to regard the lenses separately from the bodies. Choose the lens that most closely meets your defined need, no matter which camera you choose. While no one can argue against the sharpness advantages of high-end lenses - for casual photography, often the versatility of a longer range zoom is worth the trade-off. To fully exploit the difference, shots off-tripod and printed large may be required to actually see the difference. For family and vacation shots, wide-range zooms may be preferred. From a company like Canon, they can provide impressive sharpness. They tend to have smaller maximum apertures, but if they have image stabilization, the difference there too may be nullified. Match the lens to actual needs and budget. If you are doing photography for high-buck clients and top ad agencies, ultra sharp and crisp lenses are required. For hand-held stuff under widely varying conditions, shooting conditions tend to neutralize the advantages.