40d v 50d Canon - Worth an upgrade ?

If low light is your main issue then going from a 40D to a 50D is a waste of money. Something like a 7D or 60D is a very small improvement and something even newer is another small improvement. You'd get a lot more benefit from faster glass. I'd ignore the 28-135mm or the 15-85mm as they don't really give you anything faster. Any of the Tamron or Sigma 17/18-50mm f/2.8 lenses would be a big improvement over the 18-55mm for low light use. If you want to go longer it gets a bit more awkward, but Sigma made various 50-150mm f/2.8 lenses that you should be able to find fairly cheap now (they're all good) and you might be able to find an older Sigma or Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 quite cheaply. If you want to consider primes then the 50mm f/1.4 is faster (and better) than the f/1.8 and not too expensive. The 85mm f/1.8 or 100mm f/2 are both excellent lenses and fairly cheap second hand.
 
What about this
As a better low light replacement to my kit lens

Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro, Canon EF Fit



Sent from my iPhone using Talk Photography Forums
 
gothgirl said:
What about this
As a better low light replacement to my kit lens

Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro, Canon EF Fit



Sent from my iPhone using Talk Photography Forums
Click to expand...
I have the Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.0 OS lens and am very happy with it.
 
 
Id look at some fast primes for low light.

The Canon 35mm f/2 (mk 1) and the 85mm f/1.8 are fantastic lenses and will give you most bang lee buck without shelling out £xxxx for f/1.4 lenses!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top