What should my next step be?

[Winona]

Hi all
I want to upgrade something, but not sure where to go with this, especially with the new mirrorless. My love is wildlife, but hobby only. We don’t have a ton of variety around here, so im limited in that regards. We hike a lot so I also do landscape which I love equally as well. I enjoy portraits and am considering pet photography as a way to slowly cut down hours at a job I hate and as I near retirement. I have a Canon 80D as my main camera. My T2i is now my daughters. I also have a Fuji XT1, but I just can’t get used to it and think it will go to my other daughter. I have the 100-400 which I love. I have the 50mm 1.8?, kit 18-55, 18-135, 10-16, 55-250. The only L is the 100-400. Frankly, my daughter and and I fight over the 18-135 since it is so convenient. I either need to buy another or decide on an alternative.

I have thought about getting sharper glass, maybe 70-200, but heard that it won’t be an upgrade used on APSC camera. That the quality will be substandard. That is one concern. I think that will be a decent all around lens for hiking? If I see a critter I can get an environment shot, but also get some closer shots and panos. I would get the f4 as it’s lighter

Then, the mirrorless equation. Should I even buy Full frame lenses or just go to mirrorless? I would be looking at the R6or R7. That’s a whole other decision-full frame vs APSC.

I could someday do R7 with 100-500 which would be perfect for my type of photography. Then keep the 80D for landscape, etc. If I did that, would I see a difference in using an L lens? I guess I keep returning to the 70-200 as an overall lens for hiking and could be used for portraits. Or is there a better option? I have a bad back and neck and can’t carry a ton of lenses. I’ve actually been using the Fuji XT1 and 18-135 in a Fanny pack. But, I have issues with it.

Not sure if my question is clear. Lol. I guess is it worth buying L lenses for APSC /80D? And if I did switch to mirrorless do the adapters degrade the quality? I’m not a fan of extenders so wonder about any adapter.

Of course, need $ for any of these changes. With 2 kids in college these purchases will be over a span of a couple of years. Except fighting over the 18-135. I guess I could see how the 55-250 goes for now. Frankly I never use the 55-250 or 18-55. Or the wide angle for that matter.

 

[CherylL]

The R6 has the eye detect for people and one for animals. If you are wanting to get into pet photography that would be a plus. There is an adapter to use your Canon lenses. I think the R6 has only 4 lenses out now and most are back ordered.

 

[ac12]

That 18-135 is a really nice GP lens. I would get another one for yourself.
I think there are two grades of the 18-135. Get the better model.

As for using a 70-200/4 EF L lens on your APS-C camera, if you have a use case for it, DO IT.
I use the Nikon 70-200/4 on my DX/APS-C camera. The IQ of the pro grade lens is SIGNIFICANTLY better than the DX 18-140 lens. I suspect same with the Canon L lens.
One thing about the 70-200 is the short end. Carry your 18-135 set on 70, and see if you can live with that angle of view. I found that the 70mm short end could be limiting, for me. Yeah the wide range of the 18-135/140 spoiled me.

If you want a light/wide range hiking lens, take a look at the Tamron 18-400.
I have read good comments from owners of that lens. It isn't PRO grade optics, but it seems plenty good enough.

As for mirrorless.
Coming from an APS-C camera, going to the FF R series, you loose the "magnification" effect of the APS-C crop.
IOW, if you use a 100-400 on an APS-C camera, you would need to use a 160-640 on a FF camera, to get the same image magnification. Thus you need BIGGER and HEAVIER lenses. That is something to keep in mind, since you have a bad back.
Or you use your current L lens, and have less magnification.

In my case, to reduce my kit weight, I went from APS-C to micro 4/3.
The weight of my travel kit went down about 40%. And after a 2 week vacation, my back was GLAD I made the switch.

 

[jcdeboever]

L glass is the very best build quality and optics. However, size and weight is the decision you have to make. I have 3 L series lenses, 17-40, TS-E 45, and the ancient and heavy 35-350. All wonderful optically. If you go mirror less, it is more modern and you can grow with the system as they're DSLR is pretty much a non thought moving forward.

 

[weepete]

Not much point in getting the 70-200mm if you already have a 100-400mm L.

The one that sticks out to me is the 18-55mm kit lens, so maybe a nice sharp version of that (like a Canon EF-S 17-55mm f2.8mm IS, though note that the EF-S lenses are not weather sealed). Saying that if you are really fond of your 18-135mm it may be a somewhat redundant purchace.

Or maybe something a bit different like a 1:1 Macro lens if you are after something a bit different.

As far as mirrorless goes, I've become fairly resigned to the probability that like it or not, I'll be pushed into mirrorless in the next 10 years. That's pretty much killed any lens upgrades I had planned myself.

Saying that it's probably a good time to switch systems, mirrorless is pretty well developed now, there's some great funtionality and the used market for DSLRs is still pretty good, and given the mount change is recent there will be a good length of time to gradually collect quality glass.

 

[Sharpshooterr]

Winona, just a couple of my own personal insights to what I've been reading here.
1, The R adapter does NOT degrade the image in any way. There is NO glass in the base model, it's like an extension tube, so no worries about that.
2, As was pointed out the 100-400 covers almost as much range as the 70-200 so the 70-200 becomes almost redundant except for being smaller. If you're interested in smaller and do get the 70-200, if you'll be shooting in daylight conditions, get the f4 NON IS model. It's as sharp as any of them and its even smaller and lighter that the IS version not to mention much cheaper.
3, It's true with the FF you will appear to lose some tele effect but depending on what you shoot you will GAIN as much at the wide end. Your wide lenses will be truly wide! With FF you will gain a lot of dof perspective because of the wider framing.
4, with the ML cameras you will gain a LOT of focus control and accuracy that you can't get with dslr and your lenses will always focus accurately without any Micro Adjust.
5, On a apsc, 18mm is not wide. It's the same as 28mm on a, apsc but it's quite wide on a FF.
Good luck
SS

 

[Winona]

Thanks everyone. Been quite busy but will chew on all the information given. Thanks!

 

[AlgarveCyclist]

L-glass is definitely an upgrade for an APSC system; I used 24-105L and 100-400L on my 7D II. Good quality glass is pretty much the best investment you can make.

As far as bodies go, I also prefer wildlife and nature and had a 5D IV with the 24-105 and 7D II with the 100-400 on my last safari - a very good combo. However, I preferred the images from the full-frame camera and used it with the longer zoom too.

I sold both DSLR's when I bought my Mirrorless R and realised I preferred it. When I upgraded to my R5, I sold all my EF glass and started building a new RF system. The R5 crops 1.6 at the push of a button (custom set) and thanks to the 45MP, I get the best of both World's, FF + APSC...

The 70-200 2.8 is not redundant either to the 100-500 I have. Both are excellent, both have their place - the 70-200 handles low-light much better, for example and I only use the longer zoom when I absolutely need that extra reach because otherwise, I prefer the shorter zoom's quality.

 

[RacePhoto]

The 70-200 L is far superior to the 100-400 in so many ways. First off, the f/4 version is just as sharp as the f/2.8, if you don't need that extra speed, don't spend the money. If you can borrow one, or go to a store and test one, take the 100-400 and shoot both, some test images, identical lighting, subject and everything, I think you will be convinced by your own eyes, that there's nothing like the 70-200. There's not much to gain with the 70-200 in speed over the 4.5 to 5.6. Focusing distance, does it matter to you? 47" while the 100-400 is 71" eh, not so big of a deal. 4 feet vs 5.8 feet.

Yes they do overlap in range. Part of the reason the 70-200 is sharper and clearer is it's only 70-200, unlike the 100-400 that tries to be more and has that trombone zoom. (unless you have the newer version?) But by design the 70-200 is a better lens.

Something I'd say worth notice: The 70-200 f/4 is smaller and lighter and is easier to hand hold or carry around.

See above, adapters don't degrade image quality, and a L lens on an APS-C sensor means you are using the center of the image, which is the best part, that makes them better, besides the weather sealing, better optics, better build, than any EF-S which just barely covers the sensor with an image. Edges will be sharper, less distortion, color is better edge to edge, all kinds of ways, an L lens is wonderful on a crop sensor.

OK I see you didn't list my favorite, walkabout lens that I own two now. Not an L lens, not a kit lens, but good quality, right in the middle, And if you like that 18-135 you might also like a 28-135 f/3.5-f/5.6 ? Worst thing I can say about the lens is zoom creep when it's pointing down. It doesn't stay where I had it. Maybe the newer ones have that adjusted.

Oh and it's a Macro lens also, can focus down to 20 inches. Can be found for under $100 used or right around that number.

Something to consider in your hunt? You have the other 18mm and 16mm if you need something wider than 28mm?

 

[weepete]

@RacePhoto you are right that the 70-200mm is optically superior to the 100-400mm, though with the newest versions of these lenses there's not much in it at all.

Where the 70-200mm falls down in the comparison here is for Winona's spesific use case: wildlife photography. 200mm is a bit short to be really useful as a wildlife lens, whereas 400mm is much more versitile. Sometimes there's just no substitute for a longer lens.

If she was mainly focused on portaiture, then what you say makes sense and I'd agree, but for wildlife and nature photography then it's really hard to beat the 100-400mm.

 

[Sharpshooterr]

Winona, just a word on the R6 that’s been mentioned as an alternative.
I’ve not used one but I do shoot a lot with the 1Dxll. What do they have in common? They are both 20mp. You mention pet photography to offset some hours at work. That means your shooting for other people. That means you’re printing images.
I personally would avoid using a 20mp camera if I was primarily gonna print. For social media it doesn’t matter but at a16x20 print your reaching the limits of 20mp. If you gotta crop much you’ll exceed them.
There are just to many Canon choices higher than 20mp out there worthy of doing what you plan!
John

 

[RacePhoto]

@RacePhoto you are right that the 70-200mm is optically superior to the 100-400mm, though with the newest versions of these lenses there's not much in it at all.

Where the 70-200mm falls down in the comparison here is for Winona's spesific use case: wildlife photography. 200mm is a bit short to be really useful as a wildlife lens, whereas 400mm is much more versitile. Sometimes there's just no substitute for a longer lens.

If she was mainly focused on portaiture, then what you say makes sense and I'd agree, but for wildlife and nature photography then it's really hard to beat the 100-400mm.

And you are correct, for wildlife the 100-400 is a better choice, especially if it's the newer version.

If she and others in the family are trying to use the same favorite lens, I like the 28-135. But that's sure not one for wildlife. Problem with the 70-200 is it's not long enough and not wide enough for, general use. But it is one of the sharpest lenses ever for a zoom, and the same for the Nikon version.

I guess I keep returning to the 70-200 as an overall lens for hiking and could be used for portraits.

Reminds me that one of my favorites, "the perfect lens" which of course there is no such thing, is the Canon 28-300. I like it much better than the 100-400 (which I sold) or 35-350 (which I had two and sold when I got the 28-300) but still any lens like any of those, all the way out, the images start to suffer a bit, wide open.

The point is, not that anyone asked, but that's my favorite all around lens. I can be shooting distance or jump to wide, without changing the lens. For on the go, it's my favorite when I say, one camera, one lens and a monopod. Sightseeing, hiking, touring kind of things. Good for sports too. From the events to the awards, no lens changes.

Portraits? I'll never know, I don't do that.

Disadvantage is it's a L lens, and kind of pricey. One of the limited number of lenses that a 1.4EX will work on however. Then if becomes an average 420mm lens.

 

[Winona]

Wow! Thanks for all the information! I did buy a used 18-135mm so my daughter and I each have one. I almost bought a used 70-200, then decided I should pay my daughters’ college bills first! I’ll probably start with the f4.
This is all great information!

 

[ac12]

Wow! Thanks for all the information! I did buy a used 18-135mm so my daughter and I each have one. I almost bought a used 70-200, then decided I should pay my daughters’ college bills first! I’ll probably start with the f4.
This is all great information!

If you don't shoot in low light, I think the 70-200/4 will be just fine.
I shoot with a Nikon 70-200/4. Although I shoot in low light, the f/2.8 lens is 2x heavier, and for me that makes a difference.