New Glass or New Body?

[sk8teacher]

I currently have a Canon xTi and 40D, both are 10.1 megapixel cameras, and my primary lens is a Tamron 18-270. I also use a Tamron 12-24, a Tamron 90mm Macro, and a Sigma 50-500.

 

While I have gotten some really nice shots with all lens, I have been considering moving up to better equipment. Given that I can't afford to do both, which would be better, moving to the Canon 60D or even the EOS 7D using the same existing lens, or buying better quality glass?

 

Thanks for your thoughts!

[chipmaster]

What to get really depends on what you feel the limitations of your current camera and lenses are.

 

Seems like the only thing in your kit missing would be a fast prime or fast zoom. The prime is cheap, a fast zoom is big and expensive.

 

The 60D is a great all around value. The 7D is a bit aged but still one of the best cropped sports cameras. If you never feel the need or want to shoot high frame rate or above 3200 ISO, nor need fastest focus the 60D is a better option. I'm a body junky as at least for how I shoot rarely is the quality of the lense been the limiting factor for what more I'd want, YMMV.

 

I currently have a Canon xTi and 40D, both are 10.1 megapixel cameras, and my primary lens is a Tamron 18-270. I also use a Tamron 12-24, a Tamron 90mm Macro, and a Sigma 50-500.

 

While I have gotten some really nice shots with all lens, I have been considering moving up to better equipment. Given that I can't afford to do both, which would be better, moving to the Canon 60D or even the EOS 7D using the same existing lens, or buying better quality glass?

 

Thanks for your thoughts!

[mskaufman]

Hi,

 

I am operating at a level below you. I went through the same decision before my trip to AK this year. I wound up chosing the glass and purchased the Tamron lens that you are using. For me, that turned out to be the right choice. I am now considering getting a SX40 for situations where I want a lighter load.

[awboater]

When you have basically a good camera, I always think it is best to go for good lenses.

 

First, good lenses will be with you for quite some time - 5, 10, or more years.

 

A body is only going to last a few years before you go about buying another, so I would say the progression should be:

 

1. buy a decent body.

2. upgrade all of your lenses.

3. upgrade body.

 

A pro lens on a entry level DSLR is better in my view than a crappy lens on a pro DSLR.

 

This video might be a bit tongue in cheek, but it does get the point across:

 

http://www.youtube.com/user/DigitalRevCom?feature=g-u#p/search/0/hk5IMmEDWH4

[pilotdane]

I vote for quality glass. I view the camera body as having a limited lifetime. The technology will soon be eclipsed by the next new thing. A really nice lens though can last through several bodies. Just look at how long the 50D was out before the 60D came along. Now consider how long the 100-400L has been out.

 

Long ago when I first got my xti I was amazed when I bought the 70-200L. I could easily pick out which photos were taken with the kit lenses and which came from the L glass. The lens captures the light and focuses it the camera body can only work with what the lens gives it. If you have crap going in you'll get crap on the back end no matter what body.

[mnbruce]

That's a nice body, go for the glass.

[Sutho]

I have the EOS 60D and it was the best decision I made. The camera performs well and I decided for it as it was a newer model than the 7D. They both use the same sensor and are the same resolution.

 

I have photos in my links of the signature below of what this camera is capable of.

 

I should point out that I used Canons L glass lenses with this camera.

 

I have managed to find reputable sellers on Ebay where the seller is in Hong Kong and can supply lenses at much cheaper prices.

 

I am not one to influence decisions but I can answer any questions about the 60D

 

Bottom link Radiance of the Seas is 60D work.

[chipmaster]

Glass or body/films is an intersting questions as your body has the sensor and these days controls focus.

 

I can think of one situation I'd pick body over "PRO" white lense any day

Shooting in low light indoor hockey/iceskating, gymanastics, outdoor soccer/football in poor light etc.

 

Canon7D and Sigma 70-200 HSM

versus

 

Rebel and white 70-200 2.8 USM II.

 

The cheap non pro combo with superior lens will blow away the images from the rebel and the "PRO" lense

 

Uprade what is not delivering for the pictures you need. Unless of course you are a gear head with money burning a hole in your pocket and want to impress everyone with the big hood and your heavy pack :D

[mnbruce]

I vote for quality glass. I view the camera body as having a limited lifetime. The technology will soon be eclipsed by the next new thing. A really nice lens though can last through several bodies. Just look at how long the 50D was out before the 60D came along. Now consider how long the 100-400L has been out.

 

 

I agree with this.

 

 

 

While I think the 60D is a fantastic camera, I would not spend the money on it to even upgrade from my old 30D. As Pilotdane expresses above,the technology changes so fast you might kick yourself for spending the money to make the change. My 30D with my "L" lenses fit my needs 99% of the time, so I will hold out longer until I feel the need for another body. Most likely your photo skills, those cameras and an upgrade in lenses will put you right where you want to be. Now if one of those other cameras offer something that you feel you absolutely have to have, then that's another story.

[sk8teacher]

Thanks everyone for your thoughts. My original camera is the xTi. The only reason I bought the 40D was a really good price for a excellent condition used body, and the 6 fps. At the time, my oldest granddaughter was a high school sprinter and I wanted a fast frame rate. Now I am into nature photography, mainly birds and critters, with some flowers etc.

 

While my Tamron 18-270 does a nice job most of the time, there are instances when there is some blurring even with the bird sitting still. I mainly shoot aperture priority, and sometimes full manual, unless it is a nice bright day then I tend to use shutter priority. I know enough to play with ISO and aperture settings.

 

It appears that perhaps my next move should be toward a 2.8L lens, and I have been thinking seriously about the Canon 400mm 2.8 IS, especially if I can find the older model used in good condition.

 

You have certainly given me a lot to think about.

 

Thanks again,

[pilotdane]

...and I have been thinking seriously about the Canon 400mm 2.8 IS, especially if I can find the older model used in good condition...

 

Well, at least you have a sense of humor.

[Sutho]

I forgot to add earlier that the reason I went for the 60D was the HD video option in it. Whilst the video is not good for fast moving objects and darkness unless you have at least a f/2.8 lens, the video is good for close up objects like nature, some interiors and people.

 

Apart from that I really love what the camera can do.

[chipmaster]

400 is a great focal length for motor sports, BIF, and field sports. Its a beast that I couldn't imagine using without a monpod or a wimbley. I agree the VR/IS isn't critical as usually you want to be doing 1/1000 or faster with that beast! You ain't messing around going for "glass" see ya on the sideline with that big gun, ROFL

 

Personally I think something like a 200-400 F4 is more flexible.

 

..

It appears that perhaps my next move should be toward a 2.8L lens, and I have been thinking seriously about the Canon 400mm 2.8 IS, especially if I can find the older model used in good condition.

 

You have certainly given me a lot to think about.

 

Thanks again,

[donaldsc]

I currently have a Canon xTi and 40D, both are 10.1 megapixel cameras, and my primary lens is a Tamron 18-270. I also use a Tamron 12-24, a Tamron 90mm Macro, and a Sigma 50-500.

 

While I have gotten some really nice shots with all lens, I have been considering moving up to better equipment. Given that I can't afford to do both, which would be better, moving to the Canon 60D or even the EOS 7D using the same existing lens, or buying better quality glass?

 

Thanks for your thoughts!

 

IMHO, bodies will always be upgraded and replaced. Glass is forever. Therefore, if you have to make a decision, go for the glass.

 

DON

[sk8teacher]

400 is a great focal length for motor sports, BIF, and field sports. Its a beast that I couldn't imagine using without a monpod or a wimbley. I agree the VR/IS isn't critical as usually you want to be doing 1/1000 or faster with that beast! You ain't messing around going for "glass" see ya on the sideline with that big gun, ROFL

 

Personally I think something like a 200-400 F4 is more flexible.

 

What I did not say in my original post was that I am an avid nature photographer. That is why I am thinking about the 400. I have the monopod and tripod to handle a lens that big. While my Sigma 50-500 has the reach, it simply does not do well unless it is a clear bright day, and let's face it, it is not in the same league. I have seen too many great bird shots from the 400 that I cannot duplicate with my existing lens.

 

Bottom line is I agree now that new glass is the way to go for me. I may even consider replacing my 18-270 at some point with a good L lens, although I have been very happy with the photo's from it.

 

Thanks again everyone for your opinions.

 

Cheers,

[burchan]

I made big mistake. I use Nikon D7000 with 18-200 lens. Since most of my photos are taken in 18mm range I was considering 10-24mm Nikon lens but price put me off. Then I went on Baltic cruise with St Petersburg as highlight. After the cruise I said that I should have got the lens. Then Eastern Mediterannean from Istanbul and again no lens. Finally before New Zealand cruise I got the lens. All my best photos are taken at the wide end. So the story is if you want something do not postpone it. Get it now. Nikon 10-24 is amazing at any price. As for the big zoom lenses. Images are to soft. Better is to use less zoom and use your feet get close.

[Sutho]

I made big mistake. I use Nikon D7000 with 18-200 lens. Since most of my photos are taken in 18mm range I was considering 10-24mm Nikon lens but price put me off. Then I went on Baltic cruise with St Petersburg as highlight. After the cruise I said that I should have got the lens. Then Eastern Mediterannean from Istanbul and again no lens. Finally before New Zealand cruise I got the lens. All my best photos are taken at the wide end. So the story is if you want something do not postpone it. Get it now. Nikon 10-24 is amazing at any price. As for the big zoom lenses. Images are to soft. Better is to use less zoom and use your feet get close.

 

Totally agree with those thoughts. I have done Baltic and found the wide angle lens was absolutely imperative to have. Also all of my photo ranges have been in the 18mm-110mm range which is why I kept lenses that covered this. However there is a massive difference when you put on wide angle. Even at 12mm it is wide enough to capture allot of great scenes.

 

I am only young (just) and have many years of travel left in me. In my opinion a lens is a life long piece of property. I will buy it, enjoy it, look after it and have no regrets. It may be expensive but you only live once to the best of all scientific knowledge.

[awboater]

I made big mistake. I use Nikon D7000 with 18-200 lens... As for the big zoom lenses. Images are to soft. Better is to use less zoom and use your feet get close.

 

I have the Nikon 18-200 as well, and I agree, like any mega-zoom, it is a bit soft when used wide open. That is the reason I stayed with a "moderate" super zoom and didn't go with anything longer, like 18-270. I figured 18-200 was compromise enough.

 

But at f/8, I have found the 18-200 to be about as good as my better glass.

 

I bought the lens strictly for vacations as it is easier to carry than my f/2.8 glass. And I am willing to accept that I need to use it at f/8 to get any decent photos out of it in exchange for portability. So in effect, it is strictly a daylight lens. This is OK though as most of the time we are outside in the daytime anyway.

 

I also carry a Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 and that is a wonderful lens for taking on a cruise. The super wide angle lenses just cannot be beat for cruise ship and other interior photos - and the f/2.8 doesn't hurt either.