topic Re: Would you recommend improving glass before the camera? in EF & RF Lenses

Would you recommend improving glass before the camera?

ScottS — Sat, 30 Jan 2016 20:06:38 GMT

Would you recommend improving glass before the camera? My situation is this: I own a Canon 40D, which I purchased very clean from a photographer who was upgrading to the 70D. I own only kit lenses at this point. One of them is the "Nifty Fifty" Canon 50mm 1.8. I can't afford my ultimate dream quite yet of full-frame and L series glass. I think I can begin to either upgrade my lenses or my camera.

My choice right now is between the following scenarios:

Stay with my Canon 40D ~ purchase the Canon 70-200mm 2.8 IS II

Stay with my Canon 40D ~ purchase the Sigma 18-35 MM 1.8 Art Lens

(possibly both of those)

Purchase the Canon 7D Mark II w/ the 18-135 STM Kit Lens

Purchase the Canon 6D w/ the 24-105 f4 Lens

I am leaning toward better glass, because low light, clear, sharp photographs are my goal. Video and sports photography are not what I'm needing now.

I am very open to your thoughts and experience.

Thanks much!

Scott S

Re: Would you recommend improving glass before the camera?

ebiggs1 — Sat, 30 Jan 2016 20:32:38 GMT

Just from what you stated I would, "Purchase the Canon 6D w/ the 24-105 f4 Lens"

Re: Would you recommend improving glass before the camera?

TCampbell — Sat, 30 Jan 2016 22:33:10 GMT

Ordinarily I'd say go with the lenses first... but your situation is a bit special because you want to do (a) video and (b) sports.

The 40D isn't optimized for either of those things. A 7D II has a blazingly fast continuous burst speed for sports AND it's much better at video (it can do continuous auto-focus while recording video which the 40D can't do.) So I expect you'd be happier with the 7D II even though you'd be stuck with the 18-135mm lens.

Ideally the 7D II *with* the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM II would be perfect but that's a high price tag to get both at the same time.

The 6D with the 24-105 is a very attractive package... but the 6D isn't optimized for sports (it doesn't have the fast shooting speeds of the 7D II) and ti doesn't do continuous AF while recording video in the same way that the 7D II can handle it. But it is MUCH better in low light then everything else on your list.

Re: Would you recommend improving glass before the camera?

ScottS — Sat, 30 Jan 2016 22:41:30 GMT

Hi Ebiggs,

Thanks for your input. My only concern is I still have low-light issues with that. Granted, though, the package has high quality in megapixels, video, full-frame, and a decent start on L lenses!

Re: Would you recommend improving glass before the camera?

ScottS — Sat, 30 Jan 2016 22:42:28 GMT

Hi TCampbell,

Thanks for replying! I do want to point out, however, that those two things are things that I am NOT interested in at this point. I think you may have accidentally mis-read my initial post. Would you mind sharing your thoughts with that info?

Thanks much!

Scott S

Re: Would you recommend improving glass before the camera?

ScottyP — Sun, 31 Jan 2016 00:08:43 GMT

The 7d2 makes no sense for you, as it really excels at sports.

If low light is important then full frame 6d makes sense.

if you do choose to stay with your current body and upgrade lenses stick to the EF lenses rather than the EF-s if you may go FF later.

Re: Would you recommend improving glass before the camera?

ScottyP — Sun, 31 Jan 2016 00:47:19 GMT

FYI, check out the DXO mark ratings on the three cameras. People criticize their mysterious overall scores, which may be created arbitrarily, but their "sports low light" rating tells the highest ISO you can use before the image quality drops to what they deem less than excellent.

The ratings are:

40d ISO 703

7d2. ISO 1082

6d. ISO 2340

The 6d gives you a full stop of high ISO image quality over the 7d2, and about 1 2/3 stops over the 40d.

Of course a nice bright f/1.4 to f/2.0 prime lens will give you about 2 to 3 stops over a kit lens. Your nifty fifty is a great value and surprisingly decent IQ for the price. If you do ever do replace it I think 35mm is a great all-purpose focal length on full frame.

Re: Would you recommend improving glass before the camera?

ScottS — Sun, 31 Jan 2016 01:15:38 GMT

Hey Scott,

Thanks for your great input!

I've had that thought about "investing" in EF lenses for "the future" as well as the present. That's why to me the 70-200 2.8 II IS seems like a great purchase, both now on my Canon 40D, and my eventual full frame.

And I really like the notion of the Sigma 13-35 1.8 Art Lens for the low light capacity reasons, though it would not be an investment for the future of a FF.

In your opinion and experience, is your Canon 6D a solid replacement for the need for a 5D Mark III? I know that this is really getting the cart ahead of the horse for me. But one of the quandaries to me when I do one day go FF, is that debate. I considered trying to obtain a used 5D Mark II for awhile, but everyone seemed to point out that the 6D is much better than that model, for about the same $$$ brand new.

Scott

Re: Would you recommend improving glass before the camera?

ScottyP — Sun, 31 Jan 2016 02:23:14 GMT

My 6d really takes great pictures. It trounces my old crop sensor camera in low light.

I occasionally wish wish the autofocus was a bit better at tracking things moving towards me but honestly I shoot using the center AF point 98% of the time, so any more fancy AF would be overkill most of the time.

I would not not get a 5d2. It's AF is no better than the 6d and the 6d is better than a 5d2 at practically everything except weather sealing. If you want something better than 6d save up for a 5d3. Or a 6d2 when it comes out at the end of this year or the beginning of next year.

The 70-200 f/2.8 IS 2 is incredible, by the way. Crazy sharp. Fantastic color and bokeh. Solid and feels great.

Re: Would you recommend improving glass before the camera?

TTMartin — Sun, 31 Jan 2016 02:42:07 GMT

@ScottS wrote:
Would you recommend improving glass before the camera? My situation is this: I own a Canon 40D, which I purchased very clean from a photographer who was upgrading to the 70D. I own only kit lenses at this point. One of them is the "Nifty Fifty" Canon 50mm 1.8. I can't afford my ultimate dream quite yet of full-frame and L series glass. I think I can begin to either upgrade my lenses or my camera.

My choice right now is between the following scenarios:

Stay with my Canon 40D ~ purchase the Canon 70-200mm 2.8 IS II
Stay with my Canon 40D ~ purchase the Sigma 18-35 MM 1.8 Art Lens
(possibly both of those)
OR
Purchase the Canon 7D Mark II w/ the 18-135 STM Kit Lens
Purchase the Canon 6D w/ the 24-105 f4 Lens

I am leaning toward better glass, because low light, clear, sharp photographs are my goal. Video and sports photography are not what I'm needing now.

I am very open to your thoughts and experience.

Thanks much!

Scott S

The 40D is a capable sports camera, but, it doesn't do video.

The 70D should be on your radar, a very good at both sports and video, without the price tag of the 7D Mk II.

I would go with the 70D and the EF-S 18-135 IS STM kit lens, and the EF-S 55-250 IS STM. That is actually a very good setup to start out with.

Be very careful about dumping a bunch of money into gear just because. Have a need for it before you buy, especially when you are talking $1000+ lenses.

Re: Would you recommend improving glass before the camera?

ScottS — Sun, 31 Jan 2016 14:13:41 GMT

Hey TTMartin,

Thanks for your input! Again, I think my original post has been scanned a bit too quickly. Sports and video are things that I am NOT needing right now. (I guess I should have capitalized that in my original post).

Knowing that new information now, if you'd be willing to post your feedback, I'd be very open to your thoughts.

Thanks!

Re: Would you recommend improving glass before the camera?

ScottS — Sun, 31 Jan 2016 14:15:08 GMT

Also, TT,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the 70D! I've heard good things about that, too :)!

Re: Would you recommend improving glass before the camera?

ScottS — Sun, 31 Jan 2016 15:11:15 GMT

Part of this story for me is that I am a world traveler. I am currently saving for two very exciting trips:

Visit to the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Austria, including the cities of Prague, Budapest, and Vienna.

AND

India in the Himalayas.

My $$$ means I can't do the "full meal deal" of FF AND L lenses. IQ and pics of landscape, architecture (inside and out), the Himalayan Mountains, PEOPLE pics are my focus (excuse the pun!)

And so though my dream-team would be the Canon 5D Mark III, with the 24-70 2.8 and the 70-200 2.8 II lenses....

I need to either make my Canon 40D "sing" with one of the above two, and perhaps the Sigma Art 1.8 18-35 Lens

Give up low light capability and go with a new camera.

My heart is really leaning toward the lens upgrades ~ especially knowing and believing that one day I will in fact, own a FF. Upgrading "partially" to a new Canon with better optics, while that is exciting, I just really don't want to have the low light issues I currently have with kit lenses that only drop to f4 or so....And I am not a flash guy (though I know there's a place for that). Certainly not in the temples and cathedrals where I often find myself.

The Canon 7D Mark II just seems like a ton of fun ~ like a sports car or something!
And the Canon 6D sounds magnificent in all the IQ issues that I want.....but only arriving with an f-stop of 4 on the included lens.

I appreciate all of your thoughts, and certainly welcome more!

I appreciate the demeanor and positivity, too! I don't get the feeling that anyone is trying to twist my arm back up around my head ;)! Yet....as a novice, my humility is high and my pride is open.

If I've got some "blind spot" in my thinking, I'm open.

I just know that IQ is critically important to me, as is view variety with telephoto, wide angle, and LOW LIGHT levels.

Thanks again!

Scott S 🙂

Re: Would you recommend improving glass before the camera?

ebiggs1 — Sun, 31 Jan 2016 16:10:59 GMT

"In your opinion and experience, is your Canon 6D a solid replacement for the need for a 5D Mark III?"

No it is not. Not even close.

The EOS 6D and ef 24-105mm f4L is still the choice for you. You do realize that f4 is only one stop slower than f2.8? That is not a big deal.

IMHO, your second place choice would be the EOS 7D Mk II with the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens.

These two cameras are entry level models into a pro level camera. xxD series is not. That is a huge difference.

Also consider, by the time you are ready for an even bigger upgrade the 5D Mk IV will probably be out.

And remember with a 7D series or xxD series and a 24-70 or 105mm, is going to limit your WA ability some what. Not a good thing for indoor temples, art galleries and buildings, etc.

Give the EOS 6D and the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Lens a good look and try.

Lastly, most of what folks are saying about video, AF speed and low light, whatever, is just nit-picking. If you are not into this at the professional level and your job is dependent on it, any of these cameras are pretty darn good.

Re: Would you recommend improving glass before the camera?

ScottyP — Sun, 31 Jan 2016 16:13:10 GMT

Architecture and landscape takes minimal AF. Nearly any camera would do for that, so 7d2 is wasting money on AF you won't use.

You don't shoot video so the dual pixel autofocus of the 70d is likewise not particularly critical for you.

You don't beat up your camera or get it wet in extreme outdoor shooting conditions so you could easily live with the partial weather sealing and mostly metal body of a 6d vs. the more heavily sealed 5d3.

You shoot in pretty dim places like cathedrals, so FF makes a lot of sense. If not right now, then maybe later.

I think you are right in not going for a super expensive body, to save money for glass. The question seems to be whether to forget bodies altogether and go all in on glass, or whether to grab a 6d plus some FF glass. Shooting what you shoot I would get away from crop bodies eventually so I'd not get any more lenses that won't mount on full frame bodies.

I don't know your budgeting priorities, but a 6d needs a walk-around lens. If you only get the 70-200 at first you won't have any walk around lens. Getting the 24-105 with the 6d makes sense because it comes cheap as a package. Maybe you start with that package plus a bright wide-ish prime like a Canon or Sigma 35mm or the new Sigma 20mm so you are killing it in low light. Then you can get the 70-200 later.

Re: Would you recommend improving glass before the camera?

TTMartin — Sun, 31 Jan 2016 18:05:32 GMT

@ScottS wrote:
Hey TTMartin,

Thanks for your input! Again, I think my original post has been scanned a bit too quickly. Sports and video are things that I am NOT needing right now. (I guess I should have capitalized that in my original post).

Knowing that new information now, if you'd be willing to post your feedback, I'd be very open to your thoughts.

Thanks!

What is your need for the EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS II?

Don't get me wrong it's a fabulous lens, but, for over $2000 you really need to know what it is you need it for. Especially over other very good, more reasonably priced choices like the EF-S 55-250 IS STM.

The 40D is actually a very good camera. It's got very good noise performance up to ISO 1600, it's not a megapixel monster, but, as long as you're not doing heavy cropping 10 megapixels is really enough.

I just don't feel the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 has enough of a zoom range to justify the price. Considering for close to that same $800 you could purchase refurbished versions the EF-S 10-18 IS STM, the EF-S 18-135 IS STM, and the EF-S 55-250 IS STM.

You mention that you are going to be travelling, as such you really need to think about the size of your kit. Going full frame drastically increases the size and weight of your lenses. The image stabilized EF-S 10-18 IS STM is ideal for in cathedrals and temples. Its 4 stops of image stabilization means it will give you the same or better low light performance on architecture as the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8, without the weight, size or cost.

Please don't take this wrong, but, is sounds like you've gotten caught up in the internet hype of needing the highest end equipment to fulfil your needs.

For your needs you might even be better off looking at an EOS M3 rather than an EOS 5D Mk III.

My suggestion is go to Flickr, and do a photo search for photos taken with the:

1 - EOS 40D

2 - EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM

3 - EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM

4 - EOS M and it's various lenses

This will give you a good idea of the real life capability of each of those.

Re: Would you recommend improving glass before the camera?

Waddizzle — Sun, 31 Jan 2016 20:27:07 GMT

@ScottS wrote:
Would you recommend improving glass before the camera? My situation is this: I own a Canon 40D, which I purchased very clean from a photographer who was upgrading to the 70D. I own only kit lenses at this point. One of them is the "Nifty Fifty" Canon 50mm 1.8. I can't afford my ultimate dream quite yet of full-frame and L series glass. I think I can begin to either upgrade my lenses or my camera.

My choice right now is between the following scenarios:

Stay with my Canon 40D ~ purchase the Canon 70-200mm 2.8 IS II
Stay with my Canon 40D ~ purchase the Sigma 18-35 MM 1.8 Art Lens
(possibly both of those)
OR
Purchase the Canon 7D Mark II w/ the 18-135 STM Kit Lens
Purchase the Canon 6D w/ the 24-105 f4 Lens

I am leaning toward better glass, because low light, clear, sharp photographs are my goal. Video and sports photography are not what I'm needing now.

I am very open to your thoughts and experience.

Thanks much!

Scott S

One thing to consider is software support for your 40D, be it Apple or Windows. I give the 6D with the 24-105 f4 a serious consideration. You could purchase one or the other, or even both. Canon offers great deals on each item in its' refurbished store online.

As far as choosing between the 40D with either the 70-200 or the 18-35, that choice will have to be made by you. The lenses really do not comapre, as each is best suited for very different types of shots. Each would be nice to have in a camera bag, but choosing which one to buy will depend upon what it is that you photograph most often.

The Canon 24-105 f4L is a great walk around lens on a full frame body like the 6D. The lens also fills the gap between the 70-200 and the 18-35. Out of the lenses that you listed, the 24-105 would be my first choice. I think the lens is very versatile, and is an excellent price/performace value.

I faced the choice of buying the 6D or the 7D Mark II, and picked the 6D. I looked at the advantages each lens had over the other, and it was a no brainer. I'm not out shooting sports events, so I did't really need the FPS [frames per second] speed of the 7D mark II. Although, shooting birds and other creatures requires a camera that is better suited for sports. As someone has already noted, most of my shots are taken with the center focus point, so I didn't really need the advanced AF in the 7D mark II, either.

I shoot mainly landscapes, with some shots of people at social events, indoors and out. Half of my shooting is done from a tripod. Half of my lenses are manual focus. The shots that are not taken on a triod are of the walk around tourist variety. The 6D was the camera for me.

Re: Would you recommend improving glass before the camera?

ScottS — Sun, 31 Jan 2016 23:00:35 GMT

Hey ebiggs1,

Thanks for your passionate reply! I have a question for you: is the f4 stop on a full-frame equivalent to a f2.8 stop on a crop sensor? I thought I read about this someplace recently ~ dpreview, image-resource...someplace ~ that APS-C cameras compared to Full-Frame end up having this ratio.

If this is true, then I DEFINITELY could see the importance of the 24-105 f4 having way more "oomph" to low light than I had previously considered. If that 4 stop is as effective in low light as a 2.8 on a crop sensor body, then it really helps my thinking.

I like what you shared about the 6D being "entry level" of the professionals, because that has been my impression in all the scores of hours of reading that I have done, particularly on the somewhat bizaare comparisons of the 7D Mark II and the 6D, which have completely different markets, uses, etc, as I understand. Maybe it's simply because they are both new, and both around the same $$$.

My "gut" REALLY wants the 5D Mark III down the road, as I've read and read and read about what this camera can do. And I know I have a truly good "old" Grandpa in the 40D in many ways. My quandary was not to become a gear-head. Not at all! But to "BUILD TOWARD" my future in photography ~ travel, concerts, wildlife (I know, I know....this moves things back to a whole 'nother domain), landscape, people, possibly even.....one day weddings.....But in the meantime, with about $2K plus to spend, and not the $3-4K that would be "ideal" to really move effectively more deeply into classes on photography with new tools for new frontiers ~ perhaps I need to scale down what I most need for me right now.

I've looked at hundreds of images with that Canon 70-200mm USM 2.8 II.....and felt my adrenaline rush. It's kind of a strong feeling. Maybe that's later for me. Not sure yet.

Thanks for your thoughts :)!

Re: Would you recommend improving glass before the camera?

ScottS — Sun, 31 Jan 2016 23:08:21 GMT

Scott,

You make so much sense in your wisdom shared. Thanks for your patience, and your zest for my issues. This forum is THE BEST that I've run across in people really sharing their ideas with me. I'm really excited about that. And I am really excited to "GROW THIS PASSION OF PHOTOGRAPHY" of mine. (Sorry, I forgot that typing capital reads like shouting :)>>>)

That Canon 70-200mm USM 2.8 II just takes such amazing pics, that it makes me almost want to cry. And I know attaching it to a Canon 40D might be like putting $200 Nikes on a "Grandpa," but that's a hard one for me to give up. I have kit lenses from 28-135, Nifty Fifty 50mm 1.8, and a cheap kit 18-55 EF-S. So I guess when I think India, and "grabbing that pic" of a family coming down the trail....from over 100 yards away....without being "in their face," I think of the White Horse Lens as being my hero ~ even on a 40D.

But what you and ebiggs shared about the 24-105 f4 actually being a great start to my L lens collection NOW and for the future....also makes sense. And the low light capability of the Canon 6D and the optics and all ~ really has me rethinking the "both a camera and one L series lens upgrade" at the same time ~ as you mention.

Can I ask you? I also asked another on this thread. Does the f-stop on a crop translate to one higher f-stop on a FF? Is a 2.8 on my Canon 40D roughly equivalent to a 4.0 on a Canon 6D? Or does it not work that way? Sorry if that is incredibly elementary as a question, but I know that the sensor makes a huge difference.

Here's a dilemma. When the sun is going down, and there is existing light along the Ganges, and people are sending little flowered boats into the river to honor fallen loved ones, it is a sublime setting. Last summer I was shooting this with my kit lenses, and getting about one out of four shots to come out relatively well. Flashing at that event just feels so invasive. Would a Canon 6D with an f-stop of 4 have much better luck at that very real scene in my life?

Thanks, Scott! Also ~ do you shoot professionally? Is a Canon 6D a worthy wedding/event camera? Or do we need to have the 5D series for those?

Re: Would you recommend improving glass before the camera?

ScottS — Sun, 31 Jan 2016 23:13:36 GMT

Hi TT,

Thanks for your thoughts! I actually have specific thoughts on the 70-200mm USM 2.8 II. When I'm in India, and am people shooting on a trek, it is VERY invasive to park at a tea stall, and wait for the people to be walking right by me, and shoot with one of my cheap kit lenses. The shots I've seen with the white monster are incredible to me. It would be a tool for me to, with discretion and respect of keeping a distance ~ capture stunning photographs of the Indian people in saris and sadhu wear ~ without getting in their face. Another is the distant mountains and the monkeys. And where I live in Northern Minnesota, we have incredible lake and wildlife scenery.

So to be honest, I've not been caught up in hype, but the realization that the optics of that particular lens, and other quality L lens series ~ ARE what I seek to move my photography to the next levels.

That being said, I truly appreciate your providing ideas, options, and thoughts on alternatives. As $$$ is truly a factor for me, I very much thank-you for sharing other lens ideas that have worked for you! Especially your comment on the Sigma and those other options. That is VERY helpful. I'm going to give those lenses you mention a good look!

Thanks for your input, TT! This is a tremendous forum, and I am learning so much!

Have a great day!

Scott S