Gear upgrade inquiry.

[sandrael]

Hello everybody, I am an amateur photographer that is being sucked into the whirlpool of this fascinating and expensive hobby I don't yet have certain area of photography that interest me the most, i just shoot everything that I like. However lately due to lots of travelling I discovered the I love shooting street photography, cityscapes, scenic etc... At the moment I have a humble Canon T3 with 18-135 EFS STM lens + 50mm 1.8F+ 55-250mm EFS and a light but solid tripod that does the job. I am looking to upgrade, but I can not decide what would the most beneficial body? new lens? which one? My budget is probably maximum around 1000$...Thank you so much for any advice! Highly appreciated.

 

[tirediron]

You've got GAS*; when this happens, the best thing to buy is NOTHING! Seriously, buying gear for the sake of buying gear usually leads to disappointment. Wait until you find a reoccurring situation where your current gear can't do something that you want it to, THEN buy the gear that you need to meet that requirement.


*Gear Acquisition Syndrome

 

[jl1975]

You've got GAS*; when this happens, the best thing to buy is NOTHING! Seriously, buying gear for the sake of buying gear usually leads to disappointment. Wait until you find a reoccurring situation where your current gear can't do something that you want it to, THEN buy the gear that you need to meet that requirement.


*Gear Acquisition Syndrome

That's some good advice.

 

[Designer]

tirediron is wise.

If the money is threatening to burn a hole in your pocket, get a speedlight. You will then discover yet another aspect of photography.

 

[bratkinson]

When I had a 30D and the same two zoom lenses, I was all set for everything I was shooting. As mentioned by others above, unless you have a 'need' for some new capability, keep what you have. I got 'bit' by low-light photography, indoors and night shots, and ultimately found I had to do some expensive upgrading. A major attack of 'GAS' resulted. However, for the streetscapes and scenic shots you are shooting, what you have is quite sufficient. And the 50mm f1.8 will do quite well for your low light indoor work.

 

[Solarflare]

Flash
Macro lens (Tamron 90mm is popular)
Filters (ND, Gradient ND, Variable ND)
Camera Bag
Lens and Sensor Cleaning utilities
Spare Battery
Spare Memory Card
Smartphone or Tablet computer
Adobe Lightroom
...

 

[C4n0n.Fan]

tirediron is wise.

If the money is threatening to burn a hole in your pocket, get a speedlight. You will then discover yet another aspect of photography.

Or not... As you will probably not stop at one...:er:

 

[sandrael]

Thank you for answers everybody, I understand GAS etc., however would you argue that if I bought a better lens like lets say 24-105L it would improve the overall quality and sharpness of images? Is that not a good addition to developing and appreciating photography more?P.S Forgot to mention I do have a very basic speed light with TTL, which does allow to create absolutely new edge of photography

 

[TCampbell]

Thank you for answers everybody, I understand GAS etc., however would you argue that if I bought a better lens like lets say 24-105L it would improve the overall quality and sharpness of images? Is that not a good addition to developing and appreciating photography more?P.S Forgot to mention I do have a very basic speed light with TTL, which does allow to create absolutely new edge of photography

That's a great question. Let's talk about lens sharpness.

You've got a Canon T3. That's a 12.2 megapixel camera.

Ask yourself these questions:

Do you make physical prints of your images or do you view them on a computer monitor?
How large are the images when you view them?

We'll just pick a few sizes. I have a 27" monitor ... which is a nice size monitor. The resolution is 2650x1440. That's about 3.8 megapixels.
If we print an 8x10 at 300dpi, that's 7.2 megapixels.

But you have a 12 megapixel camera. That means you are usually NOT using all available data when looking at images.

So back to the lens question. Is the 24-105 "sharper" then the 18-135? It turns out the "MTF" curve between the two lenses (the 18-135 "STM" is noticeably improved over the 18-135 non-STM) are very close. The "MTF" curve is a graph which plots lens sharpness at various distances from center axis out to the edge. It'd be hard to argue that the 24-105 is noticeably better. But the REAL question is not whether it's better... it's whether it is SO MUCH better than you'd *actually* be able to *see* the difference when viewing on your monitor or the prints that you produce.

And the answer to that question (would you notice the difference?) is ... not likely.

The 24-105 is intended as a "kit" lens for a full-frame body. While it works on a crop-frame body such as your T3, you'll find it's not very wide at the "wide" end of the zoom range.

The 50mm f/1.8 is "sharp", but has poor quality background blur due to it's 5-bladed aperture diaphragm. Also it's build quality isn't particularly good and it's focus motor is slow and noisy (not good for fast action). But its in-focus quality is just as good as the other 50mm lenses that are available. The 50mm f/1.4 is the favorite but it's not actually "sharper" in the in-focus areas... it's that it has a better build quality, a faster focus motor, and it's image quality in the out-of-focus areas is smoother.

The EF-S 55-250... now here's a lens I can completely understand wanting to upgrade. The 75-300mm probably has the reputation for being the most marginal quality telephoto zoom Canon makes... the lens is designed to be cheap and it shows in performance. The 55-250 is the EF-S budget zoom. It's actually a *little* nicer than the 75-300... but not much. The contrast is poor and frankly I actually gave my copy away -- I was never thrilled with that lens.

Based on how you describe your shooting, I'm not sure I'd be in a hurry to replace the 55-250 because it sounds like you very seldom are in situations that call for a telephoto zoom.

 

[sandrael]

Thank you for answers everybody, I understand GAS etc., however would you argue that if I bought a better lens like lets say 24-105L it would improve the overall quality and sharpness of images? Is that not a good addition to developing and appreciating photography more?P.S Forgot to mention I do have a very basic speed light with TTL, which does allow to create absolutely new edge of photography

That's a great question. Let's talk about lens sharpness.You've got a Canon T3. That's a 12.2 megapixel camera. Ask yourself these questionso you make physical prints of your images or do you view them on a computer monitor?How large are the images when you view them?We'll just pick a few sizes. I have a 27" monitor ... which is a nice size monitor. The resolution is 2650x1440. That's about 3.8 megapixels.If we print an 8x10 at 300dpi, that's 7.2 megapixels. But you have a 12 megapixel camera. That means you are usually NOT using all available data when looking at images. So back to the lens question. Is the 24-105 "sharper" then the 18-135? It turns out the "MTF" curve between the two lenses (the 18-135 "STM" is noticeably improved over the 18-135 non-STM) are very close. The "MTF" curve is a graph which plots lens sharpness at various distances from center axis out to the edge. It'd be hard to argue that the 24-105 is noticeably better. But the REAL question is not whether it's better... it's whether it is SO MUCH better than you'd *actually* be able to *see* the difference when viewing on your monitor or the prints that you produce.And the answer to that question (would you notice the difference?) is ... not likely.The 24-105 is intended as a "kit" lens for a full-frame body. While it works on a crop-frame body such as your T3, you'll find it's not very wide at the "wide" end of the zoom range.The 50mm f/1.8 is "sharp", but has poor quality background blur due to it's 5-bladed aperture diaphragm. Also it's build quality isn't particularly good and it's focus motor is slow and noisy (not good for fast action). But its in-focus quality is just as good as the other 50mm lenses that are available. The 50mm f/1.4 is the favorite but it's not actually "sharper" in the in-focus areas... it's that it has a better build quality, a faster focus motor, and it's image quality in the out-of-focus areas is smoother.The EF-S 55-250... now here's a lens I can completely understand wanting to upgrade. The 75-300mm probably has the reputation for being the most marginal quality telephoto zoom Canon makes... the lens is designed to be cheap and it shows in performance. The 55-250 is the EF-S budget zoom. It's actually a *little* nicer than the 75-300... but not much. The contrast is poor and frankly I actually gave my copy away -- I was never thrilled with that lens. Based on how you describe your shooting, I'm not sure I'd be in a hurry to replace the 55-250 because it sounds like you very seldom are in situations that call for a telephoto zoom.

Thank you so much for your time to answer in such a exhausting way! I will look into the MTF charts in the future, thanks so much!

 

[TCampbell]

Thank you so much for your time to answer in such a exhausting way! I will look into the MTF charts in the future, thanks so much!

You do have to be somewhat careful with MTF charts when comparing between lenses of different types and some lenses shouldn't be compared using MTF charts. The 18-135 is a variable focal ratio f/3.5.5.6 whereas the 24-105 is a fixed focal ratio f/4. So these are "close" but not the same. Canon also plots MTF performance at f/8 (because all lenses can do f/8 and that's usually just about the sharpest) which makes comparing slightly more equal.

And of course there are many more aspects to evaluate than the MTF chart.

 

[MarshallG]

I discovered the I love shooting street photography, cityscapes, scenic etc... At the moment I have a humble Canon T3 with 18-135 EFS STM lens + 50mm 1.8F+ 55-250mm EFS and a light but solid tripod that does the job. I am looking to upgrade.

I was in your shoes last April. Since then, I replaced my XSi with a 7D (used/Mint), and I bought a 10-22mm (also used), and a bunch of other odds and ends.

The new camera pushed me to work harder - partly because the 7D is kind of a beast to tame.

But I also took a one day seminar from Syl Arena, and it was like BAM! Taking seminars or classes or participating in Meetups (as in meetup.com) are all really great ways to improve. And when you do that, you figure out which gear you want; it gets obvious.

The 10-22 EF-S is not a good people lens but it's great for interiors and landscapes. It can be great for city streets, as long as you watch the distortion or correct for it in PP. But I've taken awesome pictures with it. The biggest downside is that it won't work in a full-frame camera, which is maybe good if it keeps me from buying a 6D or 5D.

I never used my telephoto, but I started taking it to ball games. The 7D turns out to be fantastic for sports photography. Unfortunately, it shows that my 55-250 is a little "eh". I'm thinking of the 300mm f/4 for next April.

 

[ronlane]

Tim makes a good proposal but he did not make a suggestion for a replacement for that 55-250mm. I would say that if it is decided to replace it, take a look at either the 70-200mm f/4 or the f/2.8. One can be found for about $500 used and the other for less that $1500 used. Either would be better than the 55-250mm.