Upgrading: The dilemma on camera / lens to include cost analysis

[JBrown]

My current equipment:

T3i
17-55mm Kit
55-250 Zoom
85 1.8

I have been thinking more about which way I should upgrade my equipment. I like to do portrait work as well as sports. The primary limitation so far has been low light conditions for sports photography is where I really was hitting a wall. The 85mm can get the job done, but Ive gotta be right on top of the action for that. I had my eye on a 70-200 2.8 Non IS as my next purchase, but then got to thinking what about the camera body?

I started to think about upgrade paths, cost and feasibility of equipment purchases. Of course the 70-200 2.8 is about 1100 or so with the 70-200 4.0 about 700 ish. Obviously the price difference is for those stops, but what about investment of capital towards a full frame, perhaps a 6D. 3200 ISO is about the most I can tolerate on the t3i and even then once noise reduction is completed it leaves the whole picture soft. From my understanding I could gain those extra stops of light on a full frame sensor with much better noise performance.

Of course the ideal is high end body matched with top tier glass. However, for me at this point that wont happen. After looking at the canon lens lineup it becomes painfully obvious you pay a high premium for most lenses for a stop or two of light, sometimes about double the price. This cost difference would easily pay for a full frame on just one or two purchases netting "decent" glass albeit slower at F4 with a full frame body, vs my t3i with top glass.

Im somewhat torn. I know sage advice is to invest heavily into glass as it retains value and bodies come and go, however it almost seems a better overall value to go full frame and use the better iso performance to offset the need for fast glass.

Thoughts?

 

[jaomul]

If you set the 85 at f2.8 would it still get the job done? Try it. If so you may be better just buying better lenses but if your cameras still struggles then a better performing high ISO is you next port of call

 

[JBrown]

Well the 55-250 at 5.6 gets the job done, just has a bunch of noise. I do a decent amount of daytime sports photography where light is no issue. I also wonder in those circumstances if I would get more detail from a better sensor or better glass.

 

[gw2424]

You DEFINITELY should get some better glass. Better resale value as well.

 

[gw2424]

By the way, I found a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 non-is for $750 in great condition. (A couple small scrapes on glass; paint is perfect)

 

[jaomul]

If the 55-250 f5.6 gets the job done but you need a lower iso I would just go for better lenses. Your fov would change with a ff camera so lenses in the 200-300mm will not give the same effective reach, costing a lot to try make up for loss of reach with even more expensive lenses