Canon 60D or Canon 7D Or go for lenses upgrade.

[melmoore7]

I am looking to upgrade from my Canon EOS 350D and am keen on the Canon 60D or 7D. I have the following Canon lenses: EF28-135F3.5-F5.6 USM IS, EFS18-55 F3.5-F5.6IS, and a 100-300 lens(about 19years old). I am keen on travel photography, street photography and photographimg dogs mainly. Would I be better to spend less on the body i.e the 60D and spend more on a new lens? I like the idea of the flippy viewfinder on the 60 as like taking photos from odd angles but is it really worth it or more of a gimic? Any advice on body and lens reccomendations greatly appreciated. Cheers Mel

 

[jaomul]

Hi Mel, it seems that a lot of people who initially thought the flip out was a gimmick really like it once they have used it, so thats probably just a personal choice. Do you need 8 fps and a very fast autofocus (maybe that would help for the dogs). I have a 50D, only mentioning this as the 60d autofocus is similar, and I nver needed the focus to be faster. The 7d will certainly have a few pro extras like lens micro adjust, but it will be heavier and bigger also (some prefer that).
Either camera will have similar image quality and either will be a nice step up from your existing camera. Iwould definetely say the 7d is better, but at a price and sometimes the specs look great but you may not need them all. The 60d will certainly also be great and has a respectable 5 fps.

Lens wise I think you should consider a fast lens such as maybe the ef50 f1.8(less than 100 pounds) or ef 85 f1.8(about 300 pounds) or similar. They would really compliment your travel and street photgraphs helping you shoot in less light. Hope this is of some help

 

[penfolderoldo]

To be honest i'd be inclined to agree with Jaomul, i'd probably go with a 50d and splash on a decent bit of glass. The 7d has the advantage of weather sealing, which might be a consideration depending on where you travel to, but apart from that i'm not sure how many of the extra features you're likely to use. Both the 50d and 7d have magnesium bodies, which again help with cushioning the odd little knocks. The 60d in comparison feels very 'plasticky' (because it is, but in fairness it was never designed as a direct upgrade to the 50d). Worth looking at lens wise might be the sigma 28 f/1.8 - fantastically sharp but painfully slow AF (no HSM), or the canon 35 f/2, again a cracking lens.

 

[tyler_h]

The purpose of upgrading?

None of the lenses you have are spectacular to I'd consider upgrading lenses first (can we assume you have shot long enough to know what lens parameters would be useful to you) unless your body is close to being run into the ground.

 

[analog.universe]

With those lenses I would lean toward new glass as well. Could get a set of fast primes for the cost of a 7D...

the 85 1.8 mentioned is my favorite lens for photographing dogs

 

[melmoore7]

Thanks for your thoughts - definately going with the upgrading the glass idea - will check out the 50D. Like the idea of the flip screen for thos awkward angles which I seem to do quite often to get that different perspective. Any thoughts on zoom lenses as find these useful for travel - or maybe I need to get more offay with prime lenses. Thanks

 

[penfolderoldo]

well the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4 DC is nice and sharp, it'll give you effectively a 28mm -110mm including the crop factor, and its macro, has sigma's own image stabilisation (OS) and HSM. That would be a decent start, currently around £350.

 

[Big Mike]

Modern zoom lenses are pretty good, especially the newer and/or higher end (more expensive) ones.

What is your budget and what are your preferences in terms of quality vs cost. Also, was is your preference for size & weight? For example, two of the best zoom lenses would be the EF 24-70mm F2.8 L and the EF 70-200mm F2.8 L IS...but they are rather large and very heavy....probably not ideal for traveling, unless you are very dedicated to your photography while traveling.

Another thing to consider is whether you think you can get away with 'slower' lenses or if you will need or want 'faster' lenses.
We call a lens 'fast' when it has a larger maximum aperture...because that would allow you to get a faster shutter speed. Being able to use a faster shutter speeds can mean capturing motion better or getting adequate shots in lower light situation. A big advantage of prime lenses, is that they are often very fast. F1.8, F1.4 etc. Zoom lenses will rarely get lower than F2.8, and you will see that the top quality zoom lenses usually have a max aperture of F2.8 (for the whole zoom range). But that is what makes them big, heavy and expensive.

If that isn't a huge consideration for you, you might look at 'slower' zoom lenses....like the ones you have now. They might only have a max aperture of F3.5 to F5.6, but they are 1/2 the size and 1/4 the weight of the more expensive 'fast' lenses....which may be important when traveling.

 

[subscuck]

and its macro,

Eh, not so much. Sigma plays a little fast and loose with the term "Macro" on these lenses. They have a closer minimum focusing distance than other lenses, but they aren't true Macro lenses. Sigma does, however, make some nice fixed focal length "true" Macros.

 

[penfolderoldo]

and its macro,

Eh, not so much. Sigma plays a little fast and loose with the term "Macro" on these lenses. They have a closer minimum focusing distance than other lenses, but they aren't true Macro lenses. Sigma does, however, make some nice fixed focal length "true" Macros.

Subscuck is quite right, technically it's not true macro (not with a 1:2.7 ratio at any rate), but having tried one in the past it gives pretty decent 'macro-ish' results.