Would you recommend improving glass before the camera?

[ScottS]

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

[ScottS]

Hey Waddizzle,

Thanks for your insights shared! So you love your Canon 6D? I'm hearing a ton of positives on this camera on this thread. Can I ask you about it in light that is less than blue sky sunny? I know in complete darkness, we need tripod, and special knowledge. But how about in lighting from buildings at night, with people on a street? Or in a room with lights on as ambient background. One of the great disappointments for me while being in India with my Canon 40D last summer, were all those times that I had to actually give up the shot, or use my flash.

Flashing is just not my thing. So how much can that new full-frame "kid on the block" transform a less than full light situation? Are you happy with it in all circumstances?  And then that 24-105 f4 lens. That was realy bothering me that it didn't go down to 2.8. But several posters on here have all commented that I would not likely need that for MOST of my shots. 

I've been smitten with the 70-200 USM 2.8 II lens. The photographs from that make my blood fizz. I mean really! I'm like a kid in a candy shop when I see the pics. That being said...perhaps mounted on a Canon 40D vs. going up to full frame Canon 6D and the f4 stop is a good dilemma. 

Everyone says it is all about goals, and I agree. I have kit lenses covering 50mm 1.8, 18-55 EF-S (cheap kit)f3.5-5.6, and the 28-135 that came with my Canon 40D. So getting the white monster would be like an investment for now and the future. But I'm tempted to move to FF, too.

Decisions.....But how much do you love your Canon 6D :)?

[Waddizzle]

"Decisions.....But how much do you love your Canon 6D ?"

That's not a fair question.  I'm biased.  I love it, of course.  The 6D more than meets my enthusiastic amateur needs.  What I like most about it is the DETAIL that I get from the full-frame sensor.  The number of megapixels from an image sensor is not as signficant as the amount of light per pixel that the sensor can collect!  I think the images from a 10 megapixel full-frame sensor  are at least the equal of a 20 megapixel APS-C sensor, if not more so.

In low light situations, the only special knowledge you need is common sense and good instincts, also known as experience, IMHO.  I have the "new nifty fifty", Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM, lens and have captured dozens and dozens of beautiful shots with it.  I have not used that lens at night, or in low light, in the field.  I have done lots of test shots, both with and without a tripod under low light conditions, and have settled on the fact that A TRIPOD IS A MUST in low light conditions.  A tripod will give you at least one f/stop in low light, depending how much light we're talking about.

Taking pictures of lit candles is one of the more challenging shots to take.  Taking pictures of lit candles that are not stationary will test the capability of any camera/lens combination out there.  Under those conditions, really great shots will be produced in post processing, but you still need to begin with a good starting point. 

"You cannot age bad wine, and expect to turn into good wine."

For capturing low light shots without a flash, you might want to consider purchasing a wide aperture prime lens, such as the 50mm f/1.2L, or the EF 35mm f/1.4L II USM lens.  I have never  used either lens, so do not think I am speaking from experience.

[ScottyP]

First off, buying the 70-200 is what pushed me over the edge in going full frame.  The images were so fantastic it got me excited about using it all the time.  Unfortunately on a crop sensor, it was often just too long.  On a crop, the field of view is equal to a 112 - 320mm, and the 112mm "wide end" was often just too tight for use indoors, except for maybe tight head shots.

But as for the comparison of stops on crop to FF:

Think in terms of equivalent exposures.  There are 3 values on the "exposure triangle"; 1.) shutter speed, 2.) aperture, and 3.) ISO.  And everything is measured in "stops", which are doublings or halvings of one of the values.  

Shortening the shutter duration from 1/100th to 1/200th is losing one stop.  Going from 1/100th to 1/800th is losing 3 stops because it is halving the shutter duration 3 times.  But you can trade a stop of shutter for a stop of aperture, or a stop of ISO.  As far as exposure goes, it is all the same.

Every stop of aperture wider you go is a doubling of the area of the open circle in the lens, so it is letting double the light in.

Every doubling of the ISO sensitivity means you need 1/2 the amound of light to properly expose the image.

An exposure on a crop is the same as an exposure on FF.  The difference is that on the FF body you can double, or, depending on the two cameras being compared, just about quadruple the ISO setting on the FF camera without getting more noise in the image than you were getting on the crop body.  That allows you to keep a faster shutter speed without getting more ugly ISO noise.  So lets say if you need a certain shutter speed (like 1/200th) to freeze some subject movement, then an f/2.8 lens would allow you to use that shutter speed at an ISO that is 1/2 what you would need with an f/4 lens (1 stop better).  BUT, since the FF camera performs at least 1 stop better at high ISO's (usually somewhat more than 1 stop better), then you can shoot the FF camera at f/4 and get the same noise or even less than if you had an f/2.8 lens on a crop body.  

The other visual difference you will see between the two lies in the field of view and the depth of field.  A crop sensor gets its name by simply cropping off the outer part of the image circle coming through the lens.  So if you put your FF 50mm f/1.8 lens onto your crop camera, the image circle projecting through the lens into the camera is bigger than the sensor, so the outer edges of the image are "cropped off" because they are larger than the crop sensor.  

The image therefore appears to be zoomed in 1.6x in terms of field of view, but there is no change in terms of the depth of field in focus, as there normally would be if you were using a longer focal length.  So your 50mm lens gives you an image that looks like 80mm shot on a full frame camera in terms of the framing (the field of view) but it does not have as shallow a depth of field when shot on the crop body as it would on FF.  At least not if you are shooting from the same distances.   

Tim actually has a great explaination of this he has shared before, and Ernie is always good about reminding people to think in terms of FOV.  Both are better than I can do.

[ScottS]

Scott,

This explanation of the camera stops is just awesome! Thank-you! That helps me think about my options and goals very thoroughly. I knew 1.6 issue with crops, but not that DOF  was not also affected. And though ISO settings still kind of baffle my ever-growing brain around it, I didn't realize to what level that would impact the aperture.

I'm sure camera "buffs" would be smirking or quietly eye-rolling me in a pub in Scotland by now...but I truly appreciate your camera basics explanation (and will probably copy and print this off as a guide until it is truly inside my cranial tissue 🙂

SO....it sounds like I really SHOULD explore the Canon 6D a bit closer, and not underestimate that 24-105 f4L lens. I mean holding off on the White Monster does sadden me some. But what I would be gaining in that camera, that one lens, my nifty fifty, and then saving for the 70-200 USM 2.8 II maybe makes more sense than being "stuck" with 112-320mm. I knew about that, but the options for better low light capacity and IQ (two of my concerns) makes the 6D a real candidate. The $$$ all would end up about the same for now. Then I would just have to save for another year plus for the White Beast.

Can I ask you another couple of questions, Scott? (And anyone reading this, too! I'm learning a ton here on the Canon Forums. You are all great!) Scott, do you have a fave low light, fairly wide angle lens for your 6D? I was strongly considering the Sigma 18-35 1.8 for my 40D, but if I were able to go full frame, I would want something affordable to go with that but also something of quality.

I was looking at dropping about $2600 on the "package." I've also been eyeing the Canon 85mm 1.8. Though that is not "wide-angle," the low light capacity and portrait strengths have me interested. Moneymoneymoney :)!

The second question is how do you feel about getting refurbished or used lenses, such as eBay and Craigslist?

Thanks for ALL your insights, Scott 🙂

Scott

[TTMartin]

---

@ScottS wrote:

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

---

There are very few that would consider the EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II a discrete lens. It's size and color will call attention to it. The EF-S 55-250 IS on the other hand offers much of the same outdoor capabilities in a discrete compact package.

I've sent you a private message with a link to its Flickr photo pool.

[ScottS]

Thanks, Double T,

I appreciate the link. VERY good images with that. Your advocacy for those "less than L" lenses are compelling. Some superb images with the 55-250!

And....you're right about that long white elephant trunk not being very discreet. I meant simply that I could shoot subject matter from a long ways away. But true that if anyone is watching me, that's like a Paparazzi ornament. No doubt, one has to "make peace" with that if you're going to shoot with that. It's absolutely a "HERE I AM!" lens. 

Well put.

Let me ask you, too, TT. Do you ever purchase used lenses, say from Canon Direct, Craigslist, eBay, ads in the newspaper? And if so, have those worked out for you?

Thanks!

Scott S

[ebiggs1]

You have two issues here to consider.  They both boil down to pixel pitch or pixel size.  It isn't the size of the sensor that is important.  It is the pixel size which I believe 5 microns gives the best results.  The larger pixels (5+) are going to be better at low light.  The smaller pixel (5-) size for detail.  This is simplistic because it is more involved than just that but 5 microns is a seems a good average.

EV does not change between crop and FF.  But referencing a debate we had here, the noise will be.  I believe the meaning of that discussion actually should have said an EV change is required when trying to keep noise level the same. That would require an EV change. Crop vs FF, giving the pixel size difference if there was one.

It is virtually impossible to compare two different cameras like the 7D Mk II vs the 6D.  There are just too many different aspects beside the size of the sensors.

I read reviews that say you can't shoot landscapes with a 7D.  That is just nonsense.  On the other hand folks say you can't shoot sports with a 6D.  Again, that is bogus.  You should stop reading those reviewer's.

Example, the best cameras made by either Canon or Nikon do not have real high pixel counts.  The 1Dx (Canon) has 18mp and the D5 (Nikon) has 20mp.  These are two of the best cameras made in the world.  They are a good compromise between low light and high resolution.

Bottom line here is the fact that both of these cameras are extremely good.  You can be happy with either.  But you must consider the other specs beside the size of the sensor.  That is just one spec.  If someone was to tell me, you can have one camera. That's all.  You must choose between the 7D Mk II and the 6D.  I would choose the 7D Mk II but that is MHO.  I would prefer the FF sensor of the 6D but considering the rest of the package, the 7D Mk II is the winner.  Again, IMHO. The main thing for me is the robustness of the build of the 7D Mk II.

It seems you are getting caught in the low f-ratio quandary.  The numbers sound like it is a big deal but when you think about it, are they?  f4 to f2.8 is only one stop.  f2.8 to f1.8 is not quite two stops.  And dropping down to f1.2 is not even a full stop faster than f1.8.  Example, if you had a very low light scene and have a f1.8 lens, the chance of you getting the shoot does not improve significantly by dropping down to f1.2.  It is a every little bit helps situation, though.

Oh, one more thing, there are no Canon cropper "L" lenses if that is important to you.

[TTMartin]

---

@ScottS wrote:

Thanks, Double T,

I appreciate the link. VERY good images with that. Your advocacy for those "less than L" lenses are compelling. Some superb images with the 55-250!

And....you're right about that long white elephant trunk not being very discreet. I meant simply that I could shoot subject matter from a long ways away. But true that if anyone is watching me, that's like a Paparazzi ornament. No doubt, one has to "make peace" with that if you're going to shoot with that. It's absolutely a "HERE I AM!" lens. 

Well put.

Let me ask you, too, TT. Do you ever purchase used lenses, say from Canon Direct, Craigslist, eBay, ads in the newspaper? And if so, have those worked out for you?

Thanks!

Scott S

---

Canon's second generation IS L lenses like the EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II are unmatched in image quality. But, Canon's STM lens line matches the IQ of first generation L lenses, so lenses like the EF-S 55-250 IS STM matchs the IQ of older 70-200 L lenses. You are also paying a lot for the f/2.8 aperture, and if you need it, it is worth it. But, for outdoor street photography a smaller more discrete lens is a big plus.

I've purchased several items refurbished over the years never a had bad experience with those. My most recent being the 7D Mk II, EF-S 18-135 IS STM, and the EF-S 55-250 IS STM on Black Friday from Canon Direct. I've also had good luck buying used from KEH. I've had mixed luck with eBay and generally avoid eBay now. I've never bought or sold anything through Craigslist, and while there are legitimate sellers and deals, there are also lots of scammers there. 

[Waddizzle]

---

@ScottS wrote:
 

I was looking at dropping about $2600 on the "package." I've also been eyeing the Canon 85mm 1.8. Though that is not "wide-angle," the low light capacity and portrait strengths have me interested. Moneymoneymoney :)!

The second question is how do you feel about getting refurbished or used lenses, such as eBay and Craigslist?

Thanks for ALL your insights, Scott 🙂

Scott

---

I would be very reluctant to buy a used lens from someone I did not know.  I would never buy camera gear from eBay, Amazon, Craigslist, etc.  It is a risk that I would never take, but some folks accept it.  There are much better purchase options out there.  I use B&H, out of New York City.  Their post sale service is outstanding.

I have purchased refurbished lenses from the Canon online store.  I have had excellent results buying refurbished lenses.  They come with a one year warranty, just like new gear.  The prices tend to run about 15-20% less than list prices, but selected lenses each week are discounted even further.  The 24-105 f4L was selling at 40% off list last week.

I use a 6D, which was an upgrade from a Rebel T5.  I just picked a Canon battery grip for it.  Most reviews do give the 7D MkII the nod over the 6D.  I purchased a refurbished 6D from Canon for just over $1000, while the 7D was selling for $400 more at the time.  Put the $400 towards the 24-105L, which was selling at nearly 40% off.  The entire package cost me less than $1600.  The prices closed the deal for me, to pick the 6D

-----------------------------------

I have been following this thread because I've been considering a lens purchase, too.  I have the 24-105 f4L, and a Sigma 150-500, which leaves a hole between 105mm and 150mm.  I have had my eye on one of the 70-200 "L" series lenses.  There are two lenses at f/4 and f/2.8.  For each speed, there is the basic STM lens, and one that adds IS and weather sealing. 

The price jump to add IS and weather sealing is significant.  I have also been debating whether or not I need the f/2.8.  Based upon my shooting habits, I don't think I need f/2.8.  However, I think my shooting habits just may change in the future, and the f/2.8 would be the better choice for me.  I like shooting landscapes, and I frequently have encounters with the wildlife. 

I mention this to bring your attention to how well the 6D and 7D mark II are weather sealed.  Perhaps, someone could speak on this topic.

[ScottyP]

I really like 35mm lenses on a FF body.  It is a very very useful walk around length. It is also nice that a wider lens like a 35mm does not give as shallow a depth of field as a longer lens does when wide open.  I like to shoot mine at wide apertures in dim light, but it leaves enough of the subject in focus, where a longer lens might not give a usable DOF. 

Canon has a couple of good ones.  I have the Sigma Art 35mm f/1.4 and I love the thing.  I use it more than any other lens.