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]

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 :)!

[ScottS]

Thanks for sharing, Waddizzle! I assume you're thoroughly enjoying your Canon 6D! I'm really "leaning" that way now, even though the 24-105 f4 still leaves me wanting a lens for darker shooting. Glad to hear the weather sealing of the camera is solid. I'm a trekker in India, and it can get very dusty there :)!!!

[ScottS]

Scott!

You named the #1 lens that I have been "researching and reading" all about lately. The Sigma 35mm/1.4 Art Lens. If I do go with the Canon 6D and the 24-105 f4, this lens seems like the perfect partner.

I was looking at a Steve Huff website last night. He features this very lens and the Canon 85mm/ f1.2. He's got some stunning work to show for those two lenses in his "street shots in NYC!" All with a 6D.

So you are able to shoot in fairly low light with the Sigma, I gather?

Thanks for the info!

Scott 🙂

[Waddizzle]

---

@ScottS wrote:

Thanks for sharing, Waddizzle! I assume you're thoroughly enjoying your Canon 6D! I'm really "leaning" that way now, even though the 24-105 f4 still leaves me wanting a lens for darker shooting. Glad to hear the weather sealing of the camera is solid. I'm a trekker in India, and it can get very dusty there :)!!!

---

No, I did not mean to suggest that the weather sealing on a 6D is "solid."  If anything, it may be just the opposite.  The weather sealing on the 6D is reportedly not as good as on a 5D series, or on a 1D series.  I treat my 6D as if it had no sealing at all.  I have not investigated the weather sealing on a 7D mark II.  It [weather sealing] is something that I learned about the 6D after I had purchased it.

The 24-105 is a lens that changes its' lengths as you vary the focal length, which means that it lacks internal focusing and so the housing must "breathe" a little bit in order to change its' length. [In other words, the 24-105 isn't weather sealed, and will likely "inhale" dust in a dusty environment.  Ditto for a damp, misty environement.]  The internal focusing of the 70-200mm lenses is what I find most attractive about them. Gear gets dirty in the woods.  I  would want to carry either an inexpensive, disposable lens, or a more costly lens that does employ weather sealing.

I will either go with the 70-200mm f/4 USM, or the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II USM.  Big difference, I know.  But, if I am going to spend the extra money on IS and weather sealing on an f/4, which is nearly double the cost without it, then I figure I'm better off going with the f/2.8 because I'm already 2/3 of the way there in cost.

I use the 24-105mm for walk around shooting, mostly outdoors.  It works well in well lit indoor situations, too.  But, my "new nifty fifty" is great for shooting without a flash, which is something else I have been mulling over.  I do not see myself needing to synch multiple flash units, so something like the 430EX II would probably suit me perfectly.  For now, a tripod fills the need for most all of my low light, indoor shots.  I'll use my Rebel T5, if I need a flash.

[ebiggs1]

"The Sigma 35mm/1.4 Art Lens. If I do go with the Canon 6D and the 24-105 f4, this lens seems like the perfect partner."

This, Scott's advice, is very good.  I have used this combo for a long while.  I can highly recommend it. (Not the 6D but my 1DS Mk III and Siggy 35 Art)

"So you are able to shoot in fairly low light with the Sigma, I gather?"

Are you reading and understanding the concept of f-stops?   Simply buying a low number f-ratio lens may not be enough.  Don't forget f2.8  is only one stop faster than f4.  That is not a make or break deal. Consequently f1.4 is two stops faster than f2.8.  This is beginning to be a big deal.  3 full stops is a big deal. f4 to f1.4 for example.

If you think a f1.2 lens over a f1.4 is going to make an outstanding low light photographer out of you, you are mistaken.

I just don't want you to be disappointed buying something that isn't going to do what your concept of it is.  The 6D and the Siggy 35mm Art is going to be about as good as it gets for low light.  The 6D and ef 24-105mm f4 is going to be the most useful for general purposes.  You will use it most of the time.

[Waddizzle]

from an older post:

"This is because noise in the FF camera gets enlarged less.  Again a fault of AOVor DOF. This is the signal-to-noise ratio.  A consideration in photography is "shoot to the right".  Which means to over expose slightly to help reduce noise instead of unexposed.  If noise is your big concern, that is."

If by "shoot to the right" you mean slightly overexpose, then that makes sense for film.  But, I would think "shoot to the left" would be more appropriate for digital imaging.  Because overexposure [to the right] would mean more amplification, which should raise your noise floor, decreasing your signal-to-noise ratio as a result at some point.

I've been busy being a first time grandfather since January 1.  That was an interesting discussion, though.  No, I'm not trying to revive it.  Just an observation, that "shoot to the left" might be better for digital imaging, instead of "shoot to the right" was for film.

[ScottS]

Waddizzle,

Your comment at 7:13pm the other day is why I thought you were affirming the weather sealing:

"I mention this to bring your attention to how well the 6D and 7D mark II are weather sealed."

So I was building my statement upon what I thought you were stating. I certainly do not know anything about the weather sealing on that. I, too, am eventually going to own the 70-200mm 2.8 USM II for ALL the right reasons. Just not sure when!

[Waddizzle]

I realized it after I posted it and read it back.  Hmm, that could sound like I'm praising it, when I'm not.

It is my understanding that the 7D Mark II is better sealed than the 6D against dust and humidity.  If that is the type of environment that you will be in, then the 7D Mark II would be a better choice over the 6D. 

I would not overly concern myself with each camera's low light performance.  The biggest problem with shooting in low light is motion blur, either from the camera, or most likely from the subject.

[ScottS]

ebiggs,

Your comment to me:

"I just don't want you to be disappointed buying something that isn't going to do what your concept of it is.  The 6D and the Siggy 35mm Art is going to be about as good as it gets for low light."

confused me.

That's precisely why I made that comment at the top of your post, in response to Scott P's writing about the Sigma, when I wrote:

"The Sigma 35mm/1.4 Art Lens. If I do go with the Canon 6D and the 24-105 f4, this lens seems like the perfect partner."

Meaning, compared to the 24-105 f/4, this Siggy lens WILL make a huge opportunity for better photographs in lower light, yes?

I appreciate all of your insights. I just felt a bit foggy about your input on that, because it sounded like you were saying that I didn't understand that 1.4 is a huge difference than 4 in f stops. And my question to Scott P about "So it shoots pretty well in low light?" was kind of meant as an "arm tap" smirk comment. I was just hoping he might share some additional thoughts on that. But I appreciate your reminding me that photography is all about many levels of understanding, and not just numbers and data. As a musician, I couldn't agree more. It's like when i know people enjoy music, but don't know what goes into creating it vs. being a performer, conductor, teacher myself ~ all kinds of additional insight and wisdom goes into that.

So i know I need to "work the craft," including growing in knowledge on all of these factors. I just don't want to take my "first steps toward higher level purchases" with naive thoughts. That's why I appreciate yours, Scott's, TT's, and a few others who are sharing wisdom. 

In short ~ Thanks!

So coming from a Canon 40D and kit lenses, and considering purchasing the Canon 6D w/ the "kit" L 24-105 f4, and a Sigma 1.4mm Art Lens.....sounds like I'd be opening some photography doors for myself.

[ScottS]

Yeah, Waddizzle,

I've read that, too, about the 7D Mark II, that the body is a beast ~ sealed and like a tank :)!