Upgrade camera or lens?

campeterz · Aug 15, 2011

Hello, I am an amateur photographer mostly interested in shooting nature and sports. I currently own the kit lens (18-55 f/3.5-5.6) and 75-300 f/4-5.6 (without IS). I also borrow various lenses from a friend sometimes. The lenses I am looking at are the 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS, 18 mm-135 mm f/3.5-5.6 IS, or 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

My other option would be to save up and upgrade my camera (20D) to a newer Canon camera (T3i or 60D?)

As a teenager, price will play a pretty big factor in this decision

Dao · Aug 15, 2011

Instead of getting the 18-200mm lens, maybe getting the 70-200mm f/4L instead for a little more.

campeterz · Aug 15, 2011

Dao said:
Instead of getting the 18-200mm lens, maybe getting the 70-200mm f/4L instead for a little more.

Is there a major difference between the one with image stabilization and the one without, besides the price? (i.e. better glass?)

chaosrealm93 · Aug 15, 2011

i dont think so. and i agree, go with better glass. it will last longer and will carry you further

g-fi · Aug 15, 2011

Go for the glass. An older body can take you a loooong way (trust me!) and the prices fall pretty quickly on the bodies as newer ones come out and the technology improves. But good glass rarely changes, it's an investment that you don't have to constantly upgrade. It's worth it to stick with your body as long as you possibly can and put your money towards glass and good accessories that you can use forever and a day.

campeterz · Aug 16, 2011

g-fi said:
Go for the glass. An older body can take you a loooong way (trust me!) and the prices fall pretty quickly on the bodies as newer ones come out and the technology improves. But good glass rarely changes, it's an investment that you don't have to constantly upgrade. It's worth it to stick with your body as long as you possibly can and put your money towards glass and good accessories that you can use forever and a day.

Thanks for the advice, there is nothing wrong with the 20D, I just thought it was worth asking about.

One more question- Should I stick with canon made lenses, or purchase a Tamron, Sigma, or other 3rd party lens? (they are a lot cheaper!)

g-fi · Aug 16, 2011

campeterz said:
Thanks for the advice, there is nothing wrong with the 20D, I just thought it was worth asking about.

One more question- Should I stick with canon made lenses, or purchase a Tamron, Sigma, or other 3rd party lens? (they are a lot cheaper!)

YMMV. There's so much debate about whether 3rd party glass is inferior to manuf. glass. I've been using some 3rd party glass lately, and honestly, I really don't see a huge difference between the two (other than the prices). Google around about a specific piece of glass and see what others think. I am willing to sacrifice a very small amount of quality if it means a $1000 savings, and having a version of a certain lens rather than NOT having any version of that lens. Your best bet is to research for yourself and decide. Also, I shoot Nikon, I know nothing about Canon manuf. glass lol. From what I've read, Canon glass is a little cheaper than Nikon glass, but I don't know how the 3rd party lenses compare.

One thing to keep in mind is that even cheaper lenses hold their value pretty well, so if you decide a 3rd party piece isn't up to snuff, you aren't losing out on a WHOLE bunch of money. In the end you gotta ask yourself if you're willing to pay $1800 for a lens that you can get for $300, and how much you'd be willing to sacrifice in that $1500 savings. So far, I don't have any issues with 3rd party glass.

Neil S. · Aug 16, 2011

Glass is almost always the better upgrade. The only exception is if you have a truly "old body". The 20D is about at the limit of what I would consider an old body, so this is a bit of a tough one for me.

At this point I would start buying glass you can use on both a FF body as well as a crop body. Also, I would not buy another crop body for your next one.

Get a used 5D II or even 5D over another crop body. As much as I love my 7D (and I really do), I wish that I had a FF body.

The best of both worlds though would be to keep my 7D when I upgrade (which I will be doing), that way I still have the extra reach from the 1.6 crop factor+have a 2nd body to reduce lens changes.

The problem is that this would require you get more glass, and it sounds like you couldnt afford this.

So all this still doesnt really answer the question.....

Heres what I would do.

If you cant afford a used FF body as well as some non EF-S glass, then just get a few primes and use them on your 20D.

The reasons for this is are:

#1 You have none

#2 They kick ass.

#3 They are cheap

#4 You can use them on a FF body when you upgrade

#5 They are very sharp usually

#6 They are fast (large aperture)

#7 They will help you learn.

Heres a few I would recommend:

Normal EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Autofocus Lens - $380

85mm f/1.8 EF USM Autofocus Lens - $400

and if you want to shoot wider

Wide Angle EF 28mm f/1.8 USM Autofocus Lens - $510

or

Super Wide Angle EF 20mm f/2.8 USM Autofocus Lens - $500

Also, if you are sure you won't be buying a FF body and just want a sharp zoom, this one is pretty nice (I own it btw).

Its image quality is close to or equal to most L glass, but its build quality is not very impressive.

EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Zoom Lens - $1,120

The 17-85 is a good lens as well, and I used to own it before I gave it to my brother in law along with my 30D.

Here are some shots I took with the 17-85mm+30D years ago so you can get an idea what to expect. Its not L glass, but the image quality is quite descent for the price

1)

2)

3)

Hope this helps.

Neil

BJF · Aug 16, 2011

IMO, you do not need upgrade your lens. The two kit lenses can cover most of your needs. You may consider to upgrade your camera body if you do want something new. Here you are a few reference with sample pictures and videos.

Canon T3i + market price
Canon 60D + market price
Canon 18-55mm
Canon 73-300mm

Instead of a new camera, you may consider to get a standard lens like 50mm f1.8. It is affordable and really good for portrait.

Canon 50mm f1.8 + market price

EPPhoto · Aug 16, 2011

chaosrealm93 said:
i dont think so. and i agree, go with better glass. it will last longer and will carry you further

Agree 100%!!!

campeterz · Aug 16, 2011

I have used the 50mm f/1.4 but it wasn't quite wide enough for me. I might go with the 28mm f/1.8. However the 17-55mm f/2.8, 17-85mm f/4-5.6 and the 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 all seem appealing...

analog.universe · Aug 16, 2011

I owned the 28mm 1.8 and I wasn't impressed with it. It got the job done, but rarely was I excited by the results. The optics really are not that great for the money (corner/edge softness, coma, barrel distortion), and I think you'd be better off investing elsewhere. The 24mm 2.8 is actually sharper and cheaper, but the build quality suffers. The 17-55 2.8 IS has a really good reputation... If you're looking for one lens that does a lot of stuff, it does it better than the others you've mentioned, sorta pricey though compared to the others you're looking at. You frequently make compromises buying wide glass on a budget because it's not that easy to make.