vandyer
newbie
Reged: 20/09/2007
Posts: 13
|
|
Hi,
Not sure where to start but i bought my first DSLR about 18 months ago and i feel like nows the time to buy some new lenses, however i didnt know if it would be worth while actually upgrading my camera too.
I currently have the Canon 400d with the stadard kit lense and a canon 90-300 lense which was only about £100 new. I find i very rearly use the 90-300 lense as quality is poor unless using a tripod, also i find that i don't really need as much zoom.
My firt option was to buy a couple of lenses to go with my 400d. I've saw the Sigma (and Canon) 50mm 2.8 prime lense and also like the reviews of the Sigma 24-70 2.8 Macro lense too.
The other option i was to buy a Nikon D300 and 2 fast lenses to go with it (similar to the lenses i mentioned above)
I think i need a 2.8 lense as alot of my shots are in low light and also i take pics of my son playing football and some tennis photos.
Question - would it make sense to even think about buying a new camera or should the 400d be sufficient? I quite like the idea of having my 400d as a back up camera, especially as it's much smaller.
Any suggestions appriciated.
Thanks
Tony
|
nimbus
enthusiast
Reged: 29/08/2007
Posts: 280
|
|
If you intend to keep the 400D as a back up camera it would make sense to buy Canon. The kit lens you have is not generally opined to be a particularly good performer. If you find your 90-300 lens is too long in focal length terms it might be worth considering one of the Canon 70-200 L lenses, all of which are excellent, rather than immediately upgrading the camera body. The camera is capable of producing high quality, but needs good glass to be able to give of it's best. If you are taking photographs of football a zoom with a maximum focal length of 70mm will be inadequate for many shots. The 50mm is a good performer optically, but opinions vary as to the build quality. I would suggest buying lenses, leaving a body upgrade till a later date.
|
alanS
Dr Dust
Reged: 30/09/2005
Posts: 3387
Loc: Up North, England.
|
|
I'm sure that the Nikon's are wonderful cameras but do you really need two DSLR's with incompatible lenses? Maybe it'd make more sense not to add to your Canon inventory if your main camera is going to be a Nikon?
Anyway, if you're staying with a smaller sensor camera rather than going FF I wonder if the 24-70 may be a little limiting at the wide end? It may be an option to consider something starting at 17 or 18mm like the Sigma 17-70, 18-50 f2.8, Tamron 17-50 f2.8 or the Canon 17-85 (or Nikon equivalent if you buy a Nikon.)
I myself find a 50mm prime a little long for anything other than close up shots of flowers and portrait shots. The small sensor equivalent of 50mm could perhaps be something like the Sigma 30mm f1.4. I have one and I can recommend it as worth thinking about.
--------------------
Alan's defence lawyer claimed that "Booze played no part in his typo's."
|
beejaybee
Marvin
Reged: 18/07/2007
Posts: 4200
Loc: Really Here In Name Only
|
|
Quote:
If you find your 90-300 lens is too long in focal length terms it might be worth considering one of the Canon 70-200 L lenses, all of which are excellent, rather than immediately upgrading the camera body. The camera is capable of producing high quality, but needs good glass to be able to give of it's best.
...
I would suggest buying lenses, leaving a body upgrade till a later date.
^^^ WHS ^^^
As for low light, if it's not action shots you're taking, the f/4 with image stabilization would be better for you than the (similarly priced) f/2.8 without. But vice versa for action shots.
|
sjaszczak
A Real Gentleman
Reged: 08/06/2005
Posts: 900
Loc: York
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
If you find your 90-300 lens is too long in focal length terms it might be worth considering one of the Canon 70-200 L lenses, all of which are excellent, rather than immediately upgrading the camera body. The camera is capable of producing high quality, but needs good glass to be able to give of it's best.
...
I would suggest buying lenses, leaving a body upgrade till a later date.
^^^ WHS ^^^
As for low light, if it's not action shots you're taking, the f/4 with image stabilization would be better for you than the (similarly priced) f/2.8 without. But vice versa for action shots.
Also WHS ^^^
I really don't think it makes sense to change "systems". Afterall, both of the big two produce excellent cameras and lenses...I would concentrate on building up a better collection of glass.
If you don't need to go up to 300mm, then I'm sure the 70-200 F4 L IS would suit you. I recently bought one and can recommend it. Bawbee might still have his 2.8 L for sale but I somehow think it would be too bulky for the size of the 400D.
Anyway... I'm also in a position to recommend the 17-50mm Tamron for your wider needs. It's an excellent lens (as is the 18-50 Sigma so I am told) and it has the constant max aperture of 2.8 that you're interested in.
Get the glass first...then save up for a better body later. Although I'm sure the 400D will produce results you would be happy with if you give it some good glass to work with.
--------------------
Steve
My Flickr
|
vandyer
newbie
Reged: 20/09/2007
Posts: 13
|
|
So far thanks for your comments.
I think the view is that i should keep the 400d and get some better lenses. This was my first thought and first intention, but i guess i got carried away with the thought of buing new body!! Nikon seem to be doing so well with their latest cameras.
I do like the Canon 40d or 5d, i guess if and when i do upgrade bodies, one of these would be better as i could use lenses.
Thanks
|
NorthernMonkey
enthusiast
Reged: 01/05/2007
Posts: 269
|
|
If you aren't using the longer focal lenghts much, then why not invest in a better mid range zoom, rather than a higher quality tele lens.
Why not look at either the 24-70 2.8 L, or the EF-S 17-55 2.8 L
|
sjaszczak
A Real Gentleman
Reged: 08/06/2005
Posts: 900
Loc: York
|
|
Is it just me or does anyone else feel reluctant to buy EF-S lenses?
When I buy a lens, I buy it thinking that I want a good quality one that will last a long time...and knowing that I'll eventually buy a full-frame camera, I don't want to buy EF-S lenses.
I bought the Tamron 17-50 only because it was a compromise on price...otherwise I would have bought the Canon EF 17-40L
--------------------
Steve
My Flickr
|
DaveS
member
Reged: 22/06/2007
Posts: 178
|
|
Just so.
If you're thinking of a body upgrade then avoid crop-format lenses like the plague, else you'll be limited to crop-format bodies. (Replace "o" with "a" in "crop" for my opinion of them)
Dave
|
alanS
Dr Dust
Reged: 30/09/2005
Posts: 3387
Loc: Up North, England.
|
|
Avoiding EF-S or other smaller sensor only lenses (like the Tamron 17-50 f2.8) makes sense but there's also the option of buying what is best for your needs now rather than compromising on choice for possibly years before you go FF.
Something like the Tamrom 17-50 f2.8 is what? £250 for arguments sake, but you might use the lens for years and then sell it on when going FF. I don't think that's too bad and as far as I know there is no FF equivalent (when mounted on APS-C) to the Tamron 17-50 / Sigma 18-50 f2.8's. The Canon 17-40 is shorter and only f4 (and I'm sure I've read reviews in which the Tamrom 17-50 does very well indeed against this lens,) and the various 24-70 f2.8's aren't as wide on an APS-C.
I think that there's a good argument for considering a possible FF future whilst not compromising too much until you go FF.
--------------------
Alan's defence lawyer claimed that "Booze played no part in his typo's."
|
NorthernMonkey
enthusiast
Reged: 01/05/2007
Posts: 269
|
|
The canon 17-55 2.8 looks a really good piece of kit. If I stopped using film (unlikely any time soon). Then I'd almost certainly use one as my walk around lens. I currently use the 17-40L as a walk arounf lens on my 400d, but I'l like f2.8 and cant stretch to £1000+ for the 16-35
|
El Sid
Going potty
Reged: 14/04/2003
Posts: 9100
Loc: Sussex-by-the-Sea
|
|
Quote:
Is it just me or does anyone else feel reluctant to buy EF-S lenses?
Nope.... I haven't bought any either as they don't fit my D30 - have got the Sigma 17-70 and 10-20 lenses though, which do....... 
Quote:
When I buy a lens, I buy it thinking that I want a good quality one that will last a long time...and knowing that I'll eventually buy a full-frame camera, I don't want to buy EF-S lenses.
On the whole I'd say that many of us who are enthusiasts probably don't need more than 2 APS-C format lenses - a wide angle (probably a zoom in the 10-20mm(ish) range) and a general walkabout lens (18-50/70/200mm). Furthermore I say that unless you really want a single walkabout standard zoom lens you only really need the wide angle. If I'm out with digital and film EOS then the only C-format lens I take is the 10-20mm. Everything else I can happily cover with 35mm format lenses. If I only have digital with me then I'd normally substitute my 17-70 for it's film equivalent - especially if I'm travelling light.
While acknowledging that C-format lenses can be made smaller, lighter and cheaper than their 35mm equivalents I do wonder if any other than the wide angle and standard zoom types are truly necessary. If C-format cameras were the only ones available in a system - and likely to remain so - then a full range of smaller format lenses makes good sense but as soon as a FF camera is launched there is that temptation to move up/back to the bigger format. This will only become stronger if the street price of FF starts to come down and, of course, eventually used FF bodies will hit the streets at tempting prices - I know I'm tempted by the possibility of a good used 5D when it's replaced... 
There probably are plenty of casual users out there who don't really need FF and who could quite happily live with an entirely C-format system... but will they?
--------------------
Nigel
Completely BSRIPN 
ElSid Gallery
A camera in the hand is better than one in the cupboard........
|
Nod
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 08/04/2006
Posts: 4042
Loc: Devon, UK.
|
|
The smaller sensors do have the advantage of the extra apparent reach over FF with any given focal length. Also, using a FF lens on an APS-C body uses the sweet spot of the lens rather than trying to use the less sharp parts of the image circle.
Still using 35mm bodies from time to time means that I've never gone very far down the Dx road - the only Dx lens I have is the (excellent) 18-70 kit lens that came with the D70.
When the time comes for me to afford an FF body, I shall be keeping at least one Dx body for the extra reach but I'm looking forward to the results from my 12-24 being instant rather than having to wait for a lab to deal with the messy bits!
--------------------
MATWSIJ.....
To avoid being offended, please insert apropriate smiley.
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
