Upgrading, need advice and opinions

drken · Mar 13, 2008

I've come into some money, so I've decided to spend (some of) it upgrading my photo stuff. What I have now is in my sig. I've decided I have some options on how do upgrade.

1) Upgrade to a 40D.

2) Keep the Xti, but get the battery holder attachment.

2) Upgrade my 18-55 kit lens to a Canon 24-105 f/4L lens.

3) Upgrade my 70-200 lens to the 2.8L IS model. This actually isn't an option because I'm doing this no matter what.

Is it worth it to upgrade to the 40D? I can probably do that or the 24-105. Both would be a bit of a stretch.

photogincollege · Mar 13, 2008

How often do you use the wide angle of your 18-55? Just remember if you do decide on the 24-105 f/4L lens your going to lose quite a bit on the wide end. If that does not bother you however, I would say definately go for the lens over the 40d. The reason I say this is that you will probably keep that lens well past when you upgrade the xti, where as if you upgrade to the 40d, your still going to desire a better lens then the kit.

Big Mike · Mar 13, 2008

The 40D is a great camera, but what is it really going to give you that your XTi can't? Sure, it's bigger, faster, sexier etc. but the XTi is still a pretty good camera.

I think that lens upgrade will make a much bigger difference to your images.

The 24-105 F4 L is a great lens...but for me (and several others), it's a bit of an odd focal range on a crop camera like these. 24mm just isn't wide enough. But if it works for you, the go for it.

For a wider lens, I would suggest the 17-55 F2.8 IS, the 16-35 F2.8 L or the 17-40 F4 L.

drken · Mar 14, 2008

I figured as much for the 40D. It is bigger and sexier, but with the battery grip, I at least get the bigger thing fixed (I'm not a big fan of the XTi's size). I wonder how much I'll need to upgrade in order to make it worth it? I don't see me getting a MkIII any time soon.

As for the lens, I don't do much wide angle stuff and I find the 18-55 a little short. I just need it as a walking around lens. I'm going to use it to take pictures of the garages at an auto race (got myself a pit-pass), so I figure a 24-105 will do me just fine.

solrac8126 · Mar 22, 2008

well the canon 40d with the grip, another battery, the 16.35 2.8L it's less than 3k on amazon, if i where you i guess that will be my choice, then the 70-200 2.8

Anyways the xti with the battery grip it's a huge difference, you can get the opteka one for around 80$ with 2 batteries (which is the one i have) and try the rebel like that if not you could sell it anyways, if you do that then you still can purchase almost 3 lenses
16-35 / 24-70 / 70-200 :mrgreen:

then when you get more money you can use the rebel as a back up

hope this helps...

table1349 · Mar 22, 2008

solrac8126 said:
well the canon 40d with the grip, another battery, the 16.35 2.8L it's less than 3k on amazon, if i where you i guess that will be my choice, then the 70-200 2.8

Anyways the xti with the battery grip it's a huge difference, you can get the opteka one for around 80$ with 2 batteries (which is the one i have) and try the rebel like that if not you could sell it anyways, if you do that then you still can purchase almost 3 lenses
16-35 / 24-70 / 70-200 :mrgreen:

then when you get more money you can use the rebel as a back up

hope this helps...

The 16-35 f2.8L II is only $1400.00 at B&H. A lot better than less than 3K in my book.

table1349 · Mar 22, 2008

drken said:
I've come into some money, so I've decided to spend (some of) it upgrading my photo stuff. What I have now is in my sig. I've decided I have some options on how do upgrade.

1) Upgrade to a 40D.

2) Keep the Xti, but get the battery holder attachment.

2) Upgrade my 18-55 kit lens to a Canon 24-105 f/4L lens.

3) Upgrade my 70-200 lens to the 2.8L IS model. This actually isn't an option because I'm doing this no matter what.

Is it worth it to upgrade to the 40D? I can probably do that or the 24-105. Both would be a bit of a stretch.

I am a 40D owner and love it. But there are a couple of things to consider. Do you need spot metering? Do you need 6.5fps? If the answer to those two questions is no then the XTI is a keeper in my book.

I notice that you are looking to upgrade to a 2.8 version of the 70-200. If you need fast glass I would suggest that you look at the 24-70 f2.8L instead of the 24-105 f4. The "brick" is a great piece of glass and I find the faster glass to be of more use than IS in that focal length. It is part of my zoom trio that includes the 16-35 f2.8L II and the 70-200 f2.8L. All fast and a good range covered. Not cheaply, but covered.

JIP · Mar 22, 2008

Why don't you figure out what your needs are and upgrade appropriately?

usayit · Mar 22, 2008

drken said:
I figured as much for the 40D. It is bigger and sexier, but with the battery grip, I at least get the bigger thing fixed (I'm not a big fan of the XTi's size). I wonder how much I'll need to upgrade in order to make it worth it? I don't see me getting a MkIII any time soon.

If this is the best reason you have for an upgrade to the 40D, I would highly recommend that you stick with the XTi and invest in the appropriate glass attached to the camera. There is more to be gained in an upgrade of glass. If you need low-light speed at a sacrifice of weight, bulk and focal range, then 24-70L gets my vote. If you need a superior walk around lens, the 24-105L gets my vote. This is assuming that you don't care for the loss at the wider angles....

JIP is being brutally honest as usual.. but in this case, I will have to agree. WIthout that all figured out, this is an upgrade for the sake of upgrading.

soylentgreen · Mar 22, 2008

gryphonslair99 said:
I am a 40D owner and love it. But there are a couple of things to consider. Do you need spot metering? Do you need 6.5fps? If the answer to those two questions is no then the XTI is a keeper in my book.
quote]

Get the glass unless you need metering & 6.5fps. The 40D does also offer better ISO control and build but glass goes a long way.
The 24-105 is a nice lens. Sharper than the 24-70 at f/4 believe it or not. IS and weight is a big plus for it over the 24-70. For a walk-around lens that extra 35mm is a real bonus.
The 70-200 f/2.8L IS is the absolute sharpest zoom I have ever seen. Absolutely stunning wide-open. A real cinder block, but that's the price you pay for superior glass. I really shouldn't complain since my 400mm weighs 15lbs!
I debated the battery grip issue on and off and realized I really do not want to add any more weight to what I am carrying.

sabbath999 · Mar 23, 2008

Keep the present camera, upgrade the glass.

drken · Mar 26, 2008

I got the 17-55 2.8f EFS lens. Actually, 6.5/sec and spot metering would be very useful to me. Just not enough to justify not getting the lens. The 40D (or higher) is still an option, but I'll wait until I get some more money. The rest of my tax return is going towards a 24" iMac and a copy of Photoshop which will probably help me more than a 40D would.