Yet another "what should I do" question

[sec]

Before I get to my questions, here is what I currently have:
Canon T3i
Canon EF 70-300 L USM IS f/4-5.6
Canon EF 20-35 USM f/3.5-4.5
Canon EF 28-90 USM f/4-5.6
Canon EF-S 18-55 IS f/5-5.6

and what I mainly shoot with it:
landscape
wildlife
general vacation photos
baseball and ice hockey from my seat (no tripod).

I want to update my system sometime soon but don't know if I should stick with the crop bodies or switch to full frame. The part of me that always wants the best of everything says go full frame. I would love to have a 5D mkIII even though it probably isn't reasonably within my budget any time soon. The part of me that is turning 40 this year and is trying to learn to live in reality and financial responsibility says the crop bodies are just fine for my purpose. Most of the time I even like them because of the extended range. The only problem I really have with them is shooting landscapes.

My most recent thoughts are to stick with the crop bodies and get the EF-S 10-22. Not a big fan of the EF-S lenses but it's the widest I've seen for the crops and it has received some great user reviews. Is there a wider one out there? Is the EF 16-35 L worth the extra $1000?


I'm also looking to upgrade my standard lens, probably first. As I hand hold everything, I would really prefer one with IS. What would you recommend for my everyday lens? The only one I chose was the 70-300 L. The 18-55 EF-S came with the camera and the 28-90 was a cheap emergency replacement for a lens that was stolen several years ago. I did choose the 20-35, but that was fifteen to twenty years ago for a 35 mm film camera.


I realize I'm asking several different questions here, but I need outside opinions. I end up just confusing myself. Any advise or suggestions are greatly appreciated.

 

[TinySquid]

My most recent thoughts are to stick with the crop bodies and get the EF-S 10-22. Not a big fan of the EF-S lenses but it's the widest I've seen for the crops and it has received some great user reviews. Is there a wider one out there? Is the EF 16-35 L worth the extra $1000?

If you're wanting to go wide (but not fisheye) on your APS-C camera, then you may want to at least consider the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 Pro DX or Pro DX II lens. I have the older of the two (the Pro DX) and am quite happy with the performance, especially when you consider the price (~$520). The biggest drawback that I can think of is that the lens picks up flairs pretty easily (which, supposedly, was improved in the newer one through a coatings change) and there can be a fair amount of visible chromatic aberration at high contrast transition points (though, a quick trip through ACR or Lightroom can clean that up). It's good and sharp, but a bit of a specialty piece given its limited zoom range.

As for going wider, I know that Sigma makes an 8-16mm but I don't have any experience with it.

 

[Derrel]

The EF-S 10-22 is a NICE lens!!! It's quite capable. It's pretty well-regarded, and I have seen some nice landscapes made with it. It has a decent zoom ratio as well, a bit over 2x.

 

[Lumens]

For a regular every day lens (as long as you decide not to go FF) I'd recommend the Canon EF-S 15-85 f3.5-5.6 IS. It is an awesome lens - I love mine, it is extremely sharp - most my shots with it are keepers. Along with my 70-300 USM it gives me all I need. It would make a great companion to the Canon EF 70-300 L USM IS f/4-5.6 giving you a range from 15-300.

If you plan to go FF any time soon then I hear good things about the EF 24-105, that would also go well with the 70-300. Those two matched with the 10-22 would provide a good focal range of 10-300. Perhaps that may fit better into your plans.

 

[goodguy]

Well how about instead of getting a 5D III which you want but cant afford get the 6D ?
Love this camera, if I was a Canon user this would probably be my camera.

 

[sec]

Thanks for the replies and suggestions. I am considering them all seriously.

If I do decide to go full frame, the 6D would definitely be my choice. The 5D III is more of a pipe dream and probably well beyond my skill level anyway to even try to justify the cost.

Whether I decide to upgrade my lens or camera first, I guess my first decision is to commit to either full frame or APS-C. Would there be any practical reason to have one of each? I have been struggling trying to understand the real world differences between the 7D and 70D. One day I'm leaning toward the 7 and the next day I'm leaning toward the 70. I was originally leaning toward the 7D but then read a review somewhere that said it is not the greatest camera for sports and wildlife. I've read great reviews about the 70D, but most of them seem to be about video and wifi. I have zero use for wi-fi and seriously doubt that my video needs will ever exceed the ability of my point and shoot.

Not taking into account video and wi-fi, does the 70 have anything to recommend it over the 7?

 

[ronlane]

I would look at the EF 17-40mm f/4.0. It is close to the same as the 16-35 but half the price. I've seen a couple of Pro's talk about this lens and like is better than the 16-35 because of the price.

 

[robbins.photo]

Ok, well honestly your not going to get much benefit from switching bodies other than a higher shooting speed/FPS - which might be nice for the sports stuff but really other than that your really not looking at a big difference in lowlight capabilities or image quality if you stick with a crop sensor Canon. So really I would probably look at upgrading lenses first, unless you really, really need more frames per second shooting speed or some other feature the body might offer like better video abillities, touch screen, etc.

 

[ronlane]

The 70D is newer and uses a different processor. I talked with a Canon rep last weekend and he said that it is much better than the 7D in most cases (except FPS). I held it and it looked and felt good to me.

 

[W.Fovall]

get a 60D for $500+ less ?

 

[JerryLove]

your really not looking at a big difference in lowlight capabilities or image quality if you stick with a crop sensor Canon.

For reference: Here are three crop-sensor Canons, including the 7D and 70D you are asking about (and a Nikon D7100 for comparison).

 

[JerryLove]

The 70D is newer and uses a different processor. I talked with a Canon rep last weekend and he said that it is much better than the 7D in most cases (except FPS). I held it and it looked and felt good to me.

The 7D is basically the oldest Canon still in production... and everyone is expecting the 7DmkII any moment now. Likely the only thing keeping the 70D from being "better in every way" is the strategic cost of losing 7D sales (see 6D vs 5DMkIII for another example).

 

[ronlane]

The 70D is newer and uses a different processor. I talked with a Canon rep last weekend and he said that it is much better than the 7D in most cases (except FPS). I held it and it looked and felt good to me.

The 7D is basically the oldest Canon still in production... and everyone is expecting the 7DmkII any moment now. Likely the only thing keeping the 70D from being "better in every way" is the strategic cost of losing 7D sales (see 6D vs 5DMkIII for another example).

I think I would agree with that. I am waiting on the announcement of the specs of the 7D Mark II myself.

 

[Derrel]

The 70D is newer and uses a different processor. I talked with a Canon rep last weekend and he said that it is much better than the 7D in most cases (except FPS). I held it and it looked and felt good to me.

The 7D is basically the oldest Canon still in production... and everyone is expecting the 7DmkII any moment now. Likely the only thing keeping the 70D from being "better in every way" is the strategic cost of losing 7D sales (see 6D vs 5DMkIII for another example).

OMG--I agree with J-Love on something 100%!!!! Lol....but yeah...it seems IMPOSSIBLE to figure out what the hell Canon is doing in the high-end, APS-C segment with the 7D...but Canon has for about a decade now, been guilty of deliberately crippling cameras it makes by NOT giving them full features by means of camera firmware that DELIBERATELY hobbles their lower-cost models. This is where the Magic Lantern independent firmware developers have had success, offering "hacks", or non-Canon-authorized firmware updates, that can bring to life the deliberately-crippled features for lower-end Canon body owners. 6D is a pretty viable alternative if you want to go FF, but do not want to pony up roughly $3k for a 5D Mark III. The 70D feels nice in the hand,shoots at up to 7 frames a second, and has a very bright, crisp viewfinder image, which for me is wayyyyyyy better than what the Canon Rebels have. The 70D could easily have been a "7D-killer". As is, it's pretty close to a 7D in almost all ways.

The Canon 70D uses the transmissive LCD type viewfinder technology that Canon premiered back in 2009 in the 7D; the screen is artificially brightened, and it really makes it EASIER to see what you are shooting. In many ways, the crisper,brighter, clearer viewfinder image of a mid-priced camera is one of the most important improvements to actual picture-making that the pentaprism-class bodies offer.

If you've only used a T3i or other pentamirror-class camera, you might be pretty surprised by how much clearer and crisper and just, well, BETTER, the image is through a new, modern camera like the 70D.Canon EOS 70D - EOS Digital SLR and Compact System Cameras - Canon UK

 

[sec]

The purpose of getting another camera was to have a second body but also to get a significant upgrade from my T3i. I feel if I get a significant enough upgrade I won't have to do it again for a long time if at all. I did consider the 60D but decided against it as it doesn't seem to be that big of an upgrade. I originally wanted the 60D when I switched to digital, but the move was made during a vacation emergency when the film door latch on my last camera broke during use. The only camera store in the area was out of stock on the 60D so I settled for the T3i.

I probably will upgrade my lens first. It just seems to make the most sense. I've always tried to buy the best possible glass I can afford, like the 70-300 L which I absolutely love. I was trying to decide which camera body and style to choose so it would help narrow my lens decision down. No point in investing in a $600-700 EF-S lens if you are ultimately looking to move to full frame.