Current situation: I have a 300D and i will be getting a 24-70L for sure.

I'd like another lens to cover the long end along with some versatility.. which i think the bigma seems to do. It looks like the finish is horrible though: cheapy, rubbery, sparkly looking that is.. am i wrong? So a 100-400L is also being considered. (slower depreciation right? and even-er IQ along the focal range)

If i go for the lens, ill be buying it new (i hate unexpected scratches) so i'm not sure if the new Bigma would be a good buy if the resell value goes down like immediately. (flaky finish?)

on the other hand,

I'm getting awfully tired of using my 300D. It seems like i have to wait each time i take the picture cuz of the buffer and the cf write process. IQ seriously deteriorates at 800 and above. So a 40D would be nice, but necessary?

I know about the 'glass over body' rule, but I'm leaning towards the body right now. i really hope you guys can give me some insight on this decision. I have lots of time.

Thanks.

I hear you on the buffer/cf write on the 300D, that does get pretty annoying (it really only seems to affect me when using 2GB or bigger CF cards, though ... once I get around 1GB worth of pictures, it starts to write sooooo slow). I haven't had the same experience as you at ISO 800-3200 (I'm using the UnDutchables firmware to gain access to ISO 3200 (and mirror lockup, among other improvements)) ... I mean yes, they're noisy, but noise ninja + sharpening afterwards seems to work fine for my needs (i.e. not printing).

That said ... I've also recently been considering getting a new body.

I typically also go glass over body, but if you're getting to the point that you simply don't like shooting with your current body because of the limitations of it, then I'd say it's probably time to upgrade the body. If you do go for glass, I think either of your choices would be nice. I've heard nothing but good things about the Bigma, and you can't seem to go wrong with Canon's "L" glass (plus the 100-400 has IS if I'm not mistaken, which is nice).

PS: Is the 40D even out yet?

I can either assume that you meant to say 400D (not 40D), or that you're going to plunk down some serious money for a 40D when it comes out, is brand new, and is selling at a premium.

I've had both the Bigma and the 100-400. Sigma also makes an OS (same idea as IS) lens comparable to the 100-400. Anyways, there's nothing cheap about the Sigma lenses, and it takes a lot of wear for the coating to start coming off. Given the choice, I'd handpick a 100-400 (that is, go into a store and choose the best of the available bunch). Getting a used, sharp one from a reputable seller will save you from having to do that, and it'll save you most of the depreciation cost, so think about it before dismissing the idea; it's not uncommon for Canon lenses to come with dust in the lens, straight from the factory.

Hard choice...

But I'd say 100~400 over Bigma, but the body versus lens debate is tough. If you had any other body I'd say keep it and get the lens, but with a 300D being 2 upgrades old and with slow AF and write speed that might be a bigger issue...

FYI I owned Bigma and didn't like it. Personally I sold it for the 70~200mm f2.8 (sigma) and both TCs, but I just was not happy with it optically... Too many sacrifices are made to make a 10X zoom.

Ben

I hate my 300D's slow write and crap too. You're not alone.

Interesting 2 month bump, can't sleep either?

Yeah, at this point I'm sure the decision was made...

I'm working nights, and have been bored as hell.