Upgrading from a t4i

[PilotSports]

Hey guys! I'm in need of some guidance. I would classify myself mostly as a travel adventure amateur photographer. I love taking long, solo hiking trips in the smokies to photograph nature and wildlife. I also enjoy urban street scenes and architecture. I inadvertently got pulled in to photographing a family event about 6 months ago. One thing led to another and now I've been labeled the family photographer! This has left me at a bit of a crossroads. I want to upgrade my equipment, but I'm not sure the best place to start. Everything I've read seems to indicate the 6d is a solid full frame camera that would fit my interests. The 24-105mm f4L lens sounds like a solid step into the 'professional' arena. My main problem is deciding whether to upgrade to the 6d or keep what I have and invest in some new lenses. I currently have EF-S 18-135 mm STM, 50 mm 1.8 and a zoom lens I never use. Any input you guys have would be most appreciated! All of the information out there can be so overwhelming!

[TCampbell]

The T4i is an extremely good camera.  The 6D will not be able to use your 18-135mm lens (full frame cameras cannot use "EF-S" lenses -- those lenses only work on APS-C crop-frame bodies), but it would be able to use the 50mm f/1.8 lens.

If you're in to taking hikes with your camera, you might enjoy the fact that the 6D has a built-in GPS so it can record where you were when you took the image.

Apart from the full-frame aspect, another very obvious difference on the 6D is the ISO performance.  You'll notice it can shoot at higher ISO settings and have significantly lower noise as compared to your T4i.  If you find yourself trying to push the ISO with your current camera and are unhappy with the resulting noise, then this will be a really big deal.

Other than that, owning quality lenses will make a bigger difference.  

My scale of what makes the biggest difference in getting better images are (in this order):

1)  You - your skill both in knowing how to capture exposures as well as artistically and compositionally.

2)  Lighting - lighting is more important than lenses and will make a much bigger difference than anything below.

3)  Lenses - it's not just "sharpness" -- its the character of the lens, focal ratio, how well-rounded is the aperture opening (number of blades), and how well the focus motors respond.

4)  Camera body.  While there certainly is a difference in camera bodies, the camera body simply needs to be enough to be up to the task you need.  If it is, then it's everything above that will make the difference.  If not, then upgrade the body.  This is where I point out things like ISO performance with low-noise.  But that only matters if you're taking photos that force you to push the ISO.  If you're taking photos mostly in great lighting than owning a camera that does better at low noise isn't going to make thigns any better because every camera produces great looking images at ISO 100 in good light.  The 5D III and 1D X have a fabulous focus system which is especially amazing for action photography -- but if you're not doing action photography it's a feature you wouldn't really need to pay to include in your camera.  This is what I mean by the body being good enough that it's up to the task of what YOU need to shoot.  

[PilotSports]

Thanks for responding, Tim. Your advice is consistent with what I've read online: invest in better lenses now and upgrade the body later. I'd really like to have a good, fixed aperture zoom lens and a nice longer range zoom to compliment what I already have. Unfortunately, the L series 18-55 is a bit to pricey. I've been looking at options from Tamron and also a 50-500 zoom by Sigma. What would you get if you were me and had $1500-$2000 to spend? I'll probably upgrade to FF next year. Also, the AF on my 50mm is completely shot (it will only work on MF). Should I upgrade that?

[ScottyP]

If you are pretty sure you will be upgrading to FF that soon, be sure not to buy any crop-only lenses. Tamron and the other 3rd party lens makers make a lot of them, and since they don't use the Canon "-S" designation you have to learn how each maker labels them.

[ebiggs1]

IMHO, I would rate lenses as "number 1" in terms of best picture quality. A bad lens will never make a great photo.

Lenses is where it's at. The T4i is a pretty good body as it is. Remember lenses last bodies don't.

Also there are grades or levels in quality in the lenses made by every manufacture. The lenses you listed are Canon's consumer level. Almost all 3rd party, off-brand lenses fall into this category, too. (Some much worse!)  Save for just a few specific models.

The 3rd party manufactures have made some strides in quality and you can find certain models are actually very good ones. Remember most are not, however. You have to know what you are buying. Canon does not reveal how they make lenses, obviously, so other manufactures have to reverse engineer theirs to work on Canon cameras.

I am going to recommend you invest in glass, first. Although the 24-105mm f4 IS is not very wide on the short end it is a fantastic choice for a first lens in the "L" category. The T4i will make it seem longer on the 105mm end so there is a give and take there. The 17-40mm f4 L is a very nice lens on a T4i. It is going to be a more "normal" lens range on a T4i.

Either of these will work on a FF if you decide to go that route next year.

Nix the 50mm f1.8 and get the 50mm f1.4 instead. IMHO, of course! 

[Skirball]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

 A bad lens will never make a great photo.

---

Any lens manufactured today can make a great photo.  I've seen great photos made with a camera phone. 

That said, if the OP has money burning a hole in his pocket, +1 to the 24-105 and 50/1.4 combo.  Add in a macro lens and I could be a happy camper in a lot of situations.

[ebiggs1]

ebiggs1 wrote:

 A bad lens will never make a great photo.

---

Any lens manufactured today can make a great photo.  I've seen great photos made with a camera phone. 

I have no doubt you have!

[ebiggs1]

Just like the kid that came up to me yesterday and said, "Mr.Biggs I just got an app for my ipad that lets me do everything Photoshop does." 

I told him, "Sure you do." 

To each his own................

[ScottyP]

Hi,

The 24-105 is a decent lens but don't pay full price ($1100) for one. They practically give them away if you buy it as the kit lens with anFF camera. It works out to like $600 that way. You can find the lens for about $750 new if you shop around. I am not sure i would buy one outside a package, or for use as a walk-around le s for a crop body, since the 24mm is not very wide with the 1.6 crop multiplier.

Upgrading the broken 50mm would be useful on any body, and for now it is a great bright portrait lens on a crop body. Canon's 50 f/1.4 is a good bargain. At like $375 you could still get another lens in your budget.

What EXACTLY do you shoot?

[Skirball]

---

@ScottyP wrote:

What EXACTLY do you shoot?

---

This really is the base of the issue.  The 24-105 is an all around lens, and given the focal lengths you shoot at it's kind of a no-brainer given its reduce pricing.  Beyond that, it depends on what you shoot.  As I mentioned above, I'd probably get a 50/1.4 and a macro lens if it were me.  However, many photographers rarely take their 70-200 off their camera, you could get the 70-200/f4 IS in that budget.  And other still, nature photographers/architectural, would get an ultrawide like the Canon 10-22.  Unfortunately that wouldn't work if you move to full frame, but I still pull out my 450D just to use my 10-22.  It's a great lens, and wonderful in the outdoors.