New lens or camera body?

[tpuma]

So the equipment I'm using is pretty basic stuff. The body's are a Canon t1i and a Canon t5. I've been using either the 18-55 lens kit that comes with them or the 75-300 lens you can buy for around $300. I've been shooting for a few years now, pretty much with only this equipment aside from some various lighting (on and off camera) and hardware. I feel like I've really started to develop as a photographer though. And I feel that I'm developing a good eye as well. I'm also becoming better with manual settings and understanding how to use them in a variety of different situations. I feel I'm ready to take my work to the next level but my budget doesn't allow for too much.

So my question is would you upgrade the body or the lens first?

Sorry if this is a repeat topic.

 

[MACollum]

What is it you're trying to accomplish? Have you reached the limitations of your camera body? Do you feel that you need more reach or a wider angle? Answer those questions first before you decide which way to go because neither is going to necessarily take you to the "next level" by itself.

 

[tpuma]

I do feel like I've exhausted the capabilities of the bodies I mentioned above. But I'm not sure if a good lens will help stretch those capabilities further. Also I hate that both of those bodies are so noisy. I'f you look through my photos half of the wildlife I shoot are all looking directly at me lol.

 

[photo1x1.com]

So the equipment I'm using is pretty basic stuff. The body's are a Canon t1i and a Canon t5. I've been using either the 18-55 lens kit that comes with them or the 75-300 lens you can buy for around $300. I've been shooting for a few years now, pretty much with only this equipment aside from some various lighting (on and off camera) and hardware. I feel like I've really started to develop as a photographer though. And I feel that I'm developing a good eye as well. I'm also becoming better with manual settings and understanding how to use them in a variety of different situations. I feel I'm ready to take my work to the next level but my budget doesn't allow for too much.

So my question is would you upgrade the body or the lens first?

Sorry if this is a repeat topic.

Looking at your images, you shoot a lot with your long lens. Is that something you particularely like doing more, or are you rather looking for something different. If the latter, one thing would be getting closer to the "action", or to people. A nice and cheap lens that fits well in every photographers bag is a 50mm f1.8. That would give you nice bokeh and immediately a new style (but remember to get closer to really use of this effect). On the other hand the f1.8 is really great in low light situations.

The other option would be to go wider, using a much wider focal length than your 18mm kit lens.

And: on a "budget" - it doesn´t seem you are using a polarizer filter for your wider shots, do you? That´s definitely something to check out.

 

[tpuma]

So the equipment I'm using is pretty basic stuff. The body's are a Canon t1i and a Canon t5. I've been using either the 18-55 lens kit that comes with them or the 75-300 lens you can buy for around $300. I've been shooting for a few years now, pretty much with only this equipment aside from some various lighting (on and off camera) and hardware. I feel like I've really started to develop as a photographer though. And I feel that I'm developing a good eye as well. I'm also becoming better with manual settings and understanding how to use them in a variety of different situations. I feel I'm ready to take my work to the next level but my budget doesn't allow for too much.

So my question is would you upgrade the body or the lens first?

Sorry if this is a repeat topic.

Looking at your images, you shoot a lot with your long lens. Is that something you particularely like doing more, or are you rather looking for something different. If the latter, one thing would be getting closer to the "action", or to people. A nice and cheap lens that fits well in every photographers bag is a 50mm f1.8. That would give you nice bokeh and immediately a new style (but remember to get closer to really use of this effect). On the other hand the f1.8 is really great in low light situations.

The other option would be to go wider, using a much wider focal length than your 18mm kit lens.

And: on a "budget" - it doesn´t seem you are using a polarizer filter for your wider shots, do you? That´s definitely something to check out.

I definitely use the longer lens much more than the kit lens as it gets me close without disturbing the wildlife too much. That being said I like to have flexibility while shooting. So I will carry both cameras with me on an outing each with a different lens.

Not running a polarizer filter I will definitely look into it thank you.

 

[tpuma]

Incidentally, I am looking on Amazon and they seem to have good package deals on the 80D.

 

[photo1x1.com]

Hahaha, "incidentally" I know those incidents pretty well . The 80D is a great camera. But I´d first decide if there is a lens you think you could need.
BTW: Polarizers work best for wideangles. On a telephoto lens the effect is minimal. I do use it occasionally on focal lengths above 50mm, but not very often.

 

[Overread16 4]

A few thoughts:

1) 50mm f1.8 lenses are nice but generally useless for wildlife photographers taking photos of wildlife unless you're in a captive situation or you're Steve Irwin good at getting right up close

2) I generally say glass before bodies unless you're intending to change the format size (sensor/film size) then I advise the body first so that you build your kit around the sensor/film size you are working with.
It sounds like you're not changing the size of your format and have no real pressing need to either; so that means lenses.

3) Budget is all important; especially for long lenses as there's a wealth of choices that go from hundreds to thousands in cost. For what you've got and for your interest you might want to consider things such as the various longer zooms like 150-500mm or 50-500mm from Sigma; or you could consider a prime from Canon (the 300m f4 and 400mm f5.6 are very popular choices)

 

[TCampbell]

BTW: Polarizers work best for wideangles. On a telephoto lens the effect is minimal. I do use it occasionally on focal lengths above 50mm, but not very often.

I'm puzzled by this statement. You may have tried this using a subject where the light source was coming from either nearly directly ahead or directly behind and didn't get much an effect and concluded (erroneously) that it was due to the lens focal length.

The polarization effect is most noticeable when the origin of the light is coming from the sides (or above). But if the source of light is from directly behind or ahead (or at least reasonably close) then the effect is minimal. This is because light takes on an angle of polarity when it reflects off a surface and if the light was coming from the side then the angles have to mostly be similar to end up reflected toward the camera. But if the light was coming from directly behind, there are lots of possible random polarities that will end up coming in the direction of the camera.

If you use a polarizer on a wide-angle lens, the "angle of view" for the lens is wide enough that the polarization wont be uniform across the field of view. You can end up seeing a darker region where the polarization was tuned for strongest blocking, but it will face as the angle gets farther from that point. When you use a long focal length lens, the angle of view is narrow enough that you wont notice this banding and you'll get a fairly uniform effect across the entire field of view.

 

[photo1x1.com]

BTW: Polarizers work best for wideangles. On a telephoto lens the effect is minimal. I do use it occasionally on focal lengths above 50mm, but not very often.

I'm puzzled by this statement. You may have tried this using a subject where the light source was coming from either nearly directly ahead or directly behind and didn't get much an effect and concluded (erroneously) that it was due to the lens focal length.

The polarization effect is most noticeable when the origin of the light is coming from the sides (or above). But if the source of light is from directly behind or ahead (or at least reasonably close) then the effect is minimal. This is because light takes on an angle of polarity when it reflects off a surface and if the light was coming from the side then the angles have to mostly be similar to end up reflected toward the camera. But if the light was coming from directly behind, there are lots of possible random polarities that will end up coming in the direction of the camera.

If you use a polarizer on a wide-angle lens, the "angle of view" for the lens is wide enough that the polarization wont be uniform across the field of view. You can end up seeing a darker region where the polarization was tuned for strongest blocking, but it will face as the angle gets farther from that point. When you use a long focal length lens, the angle of view is narrow enough that you wont notice this banding and you'll get a fairly uniform effect across the entire field of view.

Thanks for your input, Tim. I know the ins and outs of polarizer, metal surfaces, polarizing light sources, etc.
Please try for example a 21mm lens with the polarizer and after that a 200mm lens at the same polarizer rotation. You will see, that the sky in the wideangle shot will be much more blue, than in the telephoto shot. That is very easy to compare.
Regarding the gradient in the sky with wideangle and blue sky: true, no doubt. But you'll hardly find a landscape photographer shooting especially in coastal regions that won't use a polarizer, the effect is just not something you can live without. Lagoons, plants, haze, everything becomes more contrasty and colorful.
I wear polarized sunglasses whenever I'm out in the sun and especially when I'm shooting. You'll immediately see the difference and that is much, much more than just the blue sky.

 

[tpuma]

Thanks for the input everyone!! It sounds like I should look into one or two good lenses. One long lens (longer than my current one) for sure as I'm into shooting wildlife. Thanks again everyone really great input.

 

[TCampbell]

Incidentally, I am looking on Amazon and they seem to have good package deals on the 80D.

Be very careful about "package" or "bundles". They often throw in a lot of junk-grade accessories to pump up the perceived value of the package even though much of it is rubbish that you'd never buy if you were picking it out each item.

If you have any questions, just post a link to a package you are considering and the community will give you feedback.

What Canon would include would be the body (and dust cap for when no lens is attached), battery, battery charger, neck strap, cables, and manuals.
If you buy a body + lens "kit" then they'll also include the lens and a front and rear dust-cap for the lens. However the kit lenses are intended to be "affordable". Canon's "STM" lenses have exceptionally quiet focusing motors and since they are newer they also have improved optics.

No camera manufacturer that I know of will include a memory card (although memory cards are not particularly expensive).

Sometimes a seller will try to throw in extras like a tripod, filters, extra "lenses" that aren't really camera lenses... they're focal length multipliers or focal length reducers (and usually garbage). I have (more than once) heard horror stories of buyers threading these focal length modifiers onto the front of their lenses... discovering that the threads got jammed and they couldn't remove the focal length modifier and ended up damaging the lens (I wasn't kidding when I said "garbage"). Sometimes they throw in a flash (also usually rubbish).

I would avoid those bundles.

If you're going to get any extra lenses then you want that lens to be either Canon or Nikon (depending on whether you buy a Canon or Nikon camera) -or- one of the well-known and reputable 3rd party lens manufacturers such as Sigma or Tamron. Even Rokinon make some budget priced (no-frills) lenses that actually have surprisingly good optical quality even if the rest of the lens is lacking in modern features such as auto-focus, auto-aperture, or image stabilization.

Some more reputable sellers (e.g. B&H Photo or Adorama) might include more practical extras in their bundles... such as a low-cost camera bag (the type that might cost $10-15 if you purchase it separately). Sometimes they'll include a memory card (even from a good brand such as SanDisk or Lexar). They might even include a spare battery (although it's usually an off-brand battery... my personal experience after trying about 5 different off-brand batteries is that they work but they don't have as many recharge cycles ... basically they don't last as many years before they need to be replaced.)

 

[tpuma]

Thank you sir.

 

[Advanced Photo]

Incidentally, I am looking on Amazon and they seem to have good package deals on the 80D.

Be very careful about "package" or "bundles". They often throw in a lot of junk-grade accessories to pump up the perceived value of the package even though much of it is rubbish that you'd never buy if you were picking it out each item.

If you have any questions, just post a link to a package you are considering and the community will give you feedback.

What Canon would include would be the body (and dust cap for when no lens is attached), battery, battery charger, neck strap, cables, and manuals.
If you buy a body + lens "kit" then they'll also include the lens and a front and rear dust-cap for the lens. However the kit lenses are intended to be "affordable". Canon's "STM" lenses have exceptionally quiet focusing motors and since they are newer they also have improved optics.

No camera manufacturer that I know of will include a memory card (although memory cards are not particularly expensive).

Sometimes a seller will try to throw in extras like a tripod, filters, extra "lenses" that aren't really camera lenses... they're focal length multipliers or focal length reducers (and usually garbage). I have (more than once) heard horror stories of buyers threading these focal length modifiers onto the front of their lenses... discovering that the threads got jammed and they couldn't remove the focal length modifier and ended up damaging the lens (I wasn't kidding when I said "garbage"). Sometimes they throw in a flash (also usually rubbish).

I would avoid those bundles.

If you're going to get any extra lenses then you want that lens to be either Canon or Nikon (depending on whether you buy a Canon or Nikon camera) -or- one of the well-known and reputable 3rd party lens manufacturers such as Sigma or Tamron. Even Rokinon make some budget priced (no-frills) lenses that actually have surprisingly good optical quality even if the rest of the lens is lacking in modern features such as auto-focus, auto-aperture, or image stabilization.

Some more reputable sellers (e.g. B&H Photo or Adorama) might include more practical extras in their bundles... such as a low-cost camera bag (the type that might cost $10-15 if you purchase it separately). Sometimes they'll include a memory card (even from a good brand such as SanDisk or Lexar). They might even include a spare battery (although it's usually an off-brand battery... my personal experience after trying about 5 different off-brand batteries is that they work but they don't have as many recharge cycles ... basically they don't last as many years before they need to be replaced.)

I only avoid things like bundles when it makes sense. To do so as a blanket statement will be short sighted. If, for example you can buy camera body and A and lens B for X amount, or get the same camera and lens in a bundle for 50 or 75 dollars less, then buy the bundle. Even if you throw everything else on ebay as brand new sealed in original boxes you make free money.

I bought a game from a service the other day that was on sale for 11.99 and they also offered a bundle with another game for 11.50. I bought the 2 game bundle. It would be foolish not to even if I never play the second game.

 

[TCampbell]

Thanks for your input, Tim. I know the ins and outs of polarizer, metal surfaces, polarizing light sources, etc.
Please try for example a 21mm lens with the polarizer and after that a 200mm lens at the same polarizer rotation. You will see, that the sky in the wideangle shot will be much more blue, than in the telephoto shot. That is very easy to compare.
Regarding the gradient in the sky with wideangle and blue sky: true, no doubt. But you'll hardly find a landscape photographer shooting especially in coastal regions that won't use a polarizer, the effect is just not something you can live without. Lagoons, plants, haze, everything becomes more contrasty and colorful.
I wear polarized sunglasses whenever I'm out in the sun and especially when I'm shooting. You'll immediately see the difference and that is much, much more than just the blue sky.

I did try this. I have a number of filters (including four different CPLs) so to be "fair" I grabbed my Lee CPL since that's a square slide-in filter I can attach the same polarizer to different lenses (no need to worry about thread size).

I did not expect to see a difference, but I'm always interested in learning something new. Unfortunately I did _not_ see a difference.

This really didn't come as a surprise because I realize that I should not be able to see a difference. Polarization is based on the wave nature of light (physics) and the effect of the polarizer has everything to do with the polarity and works best when the light has a mostly near-uniform polarity... and of course the rotation of the filter. The angle of view can only possibly weaken the effect (as it gets farther from areas where the polarization effect is tuned for the strongest effect). A longer focal length lens narrows the angle of view but it does not effect the polarity of the light. Also... keep in mind that the polarizer is mounted IN FRONT of the lens... so the modification to the light (rejection of light) occurs before it even enters the lens.

I don't have your polarizer or lenses. But it occurs to me that if you are not using the _same_ polarizer on both lenses then what you may be noticing is a difference in the quality of the two different polarizers (In my test I was careful to use the same polarizer so that only the lens focal length was different.) I have seen some marginal polarizers that don't work well. Also... a "circular polarizer" is really a two-layer filter. The front layer is actually just an ordinary linear polarizer. The back layer is a quarter-wave plate that puts a twist on the polarity of the light after it passes through that layer. Without the quarter-wave plate, auto-focus systems and metering systems may struggle to work correctly. It turns out if you put the same polarizer on backwards it will create a blue/gold effect as you rotate it. I did (just once) encounter someone who had a polarizer in which the glass was installed backwards and the polarizer wasn't working as intended.

It's easy to test... use something that you know has a linear polarizer (like your sunglasses). If you stack the two polarizers and twist one, you should be able to make the image go completely black if the CPL is in the correct direction (front to back). If you flip the CPL over (reverse it) and then rotate it you'll notice that you can no longer make it go completely black and instead you'll notice a blue/gold color shift as you rotate the filter.