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

[Waddizzle]

Thanks for sharing, Ernie. 

My son and his wife had a girl.  Of course, I think it is the most beautiful baby I've ever seen in my life. I'm using the wrong machine to post photos, no access to my cloud.

Naturally, I took lots of photos, or so I thought.  The day of the birth I took less than 40, and pretty much the same result the next day.  They live hundreds of miles away from me, so I have to make a return trip real soon for more shots.

[ebiggs1]

First off, full disclosure, Mr Martin and I have a disagreement on this topic.  It is easy to understand though  as he is wrong and I am right.  But it is your decision to decide whom to take the advice from.   I think most of the forum followers believe I am correct.

But there are numerous articles on this subject available for you to read.  I can't give any sources right off the top of my head but you will be able to find them if you choose.  Like I have already said experience comes from years and years of doing.  Not simply buying a DSLR and becoming a pro or expert overnight.

Most importantly you can not compare any two cameras on the market to back this up because no two are a like enough. However you all can see basic output like some of you have already done that proves my point. You don't see high MP count cameras with great high ISO.  Do you?  High ISO performance requires large pixels.  SImple.

Smaller sensors produce more noise at higher ISO's because the high pixel count means that more pixels are being packed on to the smaller sensor.  Translates to smaller pixel size. This produces more noise at higher ISO's thus making it unusable.

FF sensors allow larger pixels to be used for the same pixel count. Thus equals higher ISO's before the noise gets intolerable. Make sense?

Larger pixels have more surface areas to capture light and accumulate a higher voltage from the light that hits its surface. It is therefore relatively lower (the voltage) compared to the higher voltage required by the smaller pixel to produce the same ISO level.

Look at two similar cameras on the market for another example.  The 5Ds has a 51MP full frame sensor.  ISO is 100-6400. The newest 1Dx Mk II has a full frame sensor at 21MP.  ISO range is 100-51200.  Both use dual DIGIC 6 processors, I believe.  But remember you can not really compare two different cameras as there is still too much going on.  But that is telling, isn't it?

If you are curious, a FF camera with 36MP count would have the same size pixels as a APS-C (cropper) camera with 16MP.

I have no intention of rehashing this over with Mr Martin.  He is free to believe whatever he wants and you all are free to decide which sounds more feasible.  But if any of the rest of you still have questions, feel free to ask.  After all the advice is free and worth just about that much!

[ebiggs1]

"...  the 7D Mark II, that the body is a beast ~ sealed and like a tank"

No camera is sealed like a "tank" if you change the lens.  Dust will find its way inside.  Believe me!

[TTMartin]

---

@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.

[ScottS]

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

[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

[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. 

[ScottS]

Thanks for sharing, TT! Canon Direct is a place I've looked. KEH is new to me. Looks like quite a few choices there :)!!!  I appreciate the source info :)!

[Waddizzle]

---

@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.