Upgrade advice

laam999 · Feb 12, 2011

I have decided to buy myself a new lens as a birthday present to myself and settled on the tamron 17-50 f2.8 non-VC as a good lens for price and quality.

However I have had my 350d now for many years and still "fear" going above 400 ISO as I've never gotten method of noise removal. While thinking about a new lens I started to wonder if it may be worth getting either a 60d or 7d to go along with my new lens, I would only buy used as new is simply out of my price range atm (I'm currently saving for a house) but I'd like to know if it's worth getting a new camera too or should I spend some time with the lens first to see how I feel. I bought the 580 EX II flash to solve the problems Ihad had with harsh shadows when trying not to use a high ISO and I have the 50mm f1.8 prime.

I'm just looking for opinions on if I would just buy the lens then worry about a camera later or if these two camera can seriously improve the high ISO performance issues I currently have. Since I like low light photography and sometime long exposures or flash just aren't possible high ISO is the only option.

Any adive, tips or comments on getting a new camera or my choice in lense would be nice. I have thought about just getting the 17-55mm f2.8 canon and keep my body but feel the extra price doesn't justify the slight quality advantage it seems to have.

Thanks for the comments.

Liam

subscuck · Feb 12, 2011

Everybody will have their own opinion on this based on budget, need, etc. I think in a lot of cases, it's better to upgrade the glass first. I'd say you're one of those cases. The 350D, while several generations old now, is still quite a capable camera, and will benefit from better glass.

The 60 or 7D will definately perform much better at high ISO, but there is a lot of good NR software out there, and I would suggest using it and not worry about going over 400. I've been using the community version of Noiseware for some time, and I was always happy with the results when I would shoot at 800 with my 350D.

As far as the EF-S 17-55, I would think the IS would make it a better choice than the Tammy. If you don't want to push ISO, the IS can certainly help with that in some low light situations. But again, some NR software will also go a long way.

Robin Usagani · Feb 12, 2011

Do me a favor, go shoot around inside your house with ISO 3200 or 6400 (not sure how high your camera can go). Make sure you expose everything correctly (nothing underexposed). Now look at the results. Do not zoom in. Is it really that bad? Print a few 4x6, is it that bad? A lot of people are so afraid of noise because they zoom in to their photos. Post the high ISO photos here SOOC.

laam999 · Feb 12, 2011

I see what you're saying about it being usable if I don't zoom in but I always zoom is as far as poss on camera to make sure I have the correct focus and I always see the noise. But I suppose you're right about that.

I'd love the 17-55 canon but I think it's just a little outside my budget, unless it's really that much better than the tamron which I've read are both very similar in IQ then I can't really justify the price.

I agree again that a new lens would be better than a new cam but I've just been looking, if I can get a 60d for under £500 or a 7d for under £700 I think I'll get it regardless, otherwise it'll just be lens for me.

If you's like to know my budget it's anywhere upto around £900 but obv the less the better as I am saving for a house, but I don't want anything worse than the IQ of the 15-85mm but I would like something with a contasnt f2.8 if possible.

Thanks for the comments.

Liam