New camera or new lens??

Bikemansteve

Bikemansteve

Suspended / Banned
Messages
554
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
Yes
I want to ask the knowledgeable people on here whether I should 'upgrade' my camera...

I've been toying with the idea of changing my Canon 30D with a non IS 18-55 kit lens, which I think I get excellent results from, to a 15.1 mp 500D from Jessops as they've got a deal with a the new 18-55 IS kit lens..

My quandry is the 30D has a better built body than the 500D but only an 8mp sensor, do I go for the 15.1 mp 500D with the 18-55mm IS lens(which does get better reviews than the old kit lens) and as I can't afford L lenses at present, I fancy the idea of a Canon ef-s 17-85mm with IS, which would cost @ the same difference as me selling my 30D then buying the 500D + 18-55 IS...

I use it for all round shots - some scenic, some portrait, some close ups - basically, I don't specialise in just landscapes or just portraits so don't want a prime lens + I don't do prints larger than A4, but I do get excellent quality prints from my current camera....

So, the question is... will I notice any real improvement from the additional pixels, or would I be better keeping my current camera and getting better glass???


Be gentle...:|
 
Last edited:
Body or Lens ? - It's a common question and there's no 'right' answer.

I'd be inclined to think about what the issue is and then decide whether it's down to the body or the lens.

I personally prefer XXD bodies to XXXD bodies.

If you never print bigger than A4 then your 8MP should be fine. Moving to 15MP will give you the option to do more 'detailed' crops but if you changed your 55mm kit lens for something a little longer then you could argue you wouldn't need to crop anyway.

I'd keep the 30D and for general shooting look at upgrading your lens. The 15-85 is a step up from the 17-85 and worth looking at depending on your budget.
 
Last edited:
in your case, glass.
 
Phil is right if you never print above A4 then buying another camera is a waste of funds. I own 50D and I sometimes borrow my friends 30D when I need to shoot with 2 bodies, why am I telling you this well because I have a 500D as well but if the shoot is important I would rather take the 30D over the 500D you just cant get away from the build quality, the 30D is in a different league in that respect. You are however not getting anywhere near or close to the potential of the 30D's abilities you really do need better glass that original 18-55 is a mediocre/poor optic at best. Your choice of 17-85 is a huge step up and will feel much better and balanced on the 30Ds body (I sold mine to my friend with the 30D to replace his 18-55 non IS and he loves it). Dont dismiss the 15-85 though which is probably better optically if you can find a used one that fits your budget. Dont dismiss the Sigma and Tamrons either though. Check out test/reviews on there 18-50ish models with image stabilisation and of course f2.8 max apertures the extra speed can revolutionise how you shoot.
 
Last edited:
Gazamonk said:
Phil is right if you never print above A4 then buying another camera is a waste of funds. I own 50D and I sometimes borrow my friends 30D when I need to shoot with 2 bodies, why am I telling you this well because I have a 500D as well but if the shoot is important I would rather take the 30D over the 500D you just cant get away from the build quality, the 30D is in a different league in that respect. You are however not getting anywhere near or close to the potential of the 30D's abilities you really do need better glass that original 18-55 is a mediocre/poor optic at best. Your choice of 17-85 is a huge step up and will feel much better and balanced on the 30Ds body (I sold mine to my friend with the 30D to replace his 18-55 non IS and he loves it). Dont dismiss the 15-85 though which is probably better optically if you can find a used one that fits your budget. Dont dismiss the Sigma and Tamrons either though. Check out test/reviews on there 18-50ish models with image stabilisation and of course f2.8 max apertures the extra speed can revolutionise how you shoot.
Click to expand...


Many thanks for all your replies - it very much confirmed what I was thinking... ;-)
 
Bikemansteve said:
...., I fancy the idea of a Canon ef-s 17-85mm with IS, which would cost @ the same difference as me selling my 30D then buying the 500D + 18-55 IS....:|
Click to expand...

Get the 15-85, it's an excellent lens. :thumbs:
 
I have a 20D which I think is very similar to your 30D.

In your place I'd go for a quality 17-50mm f2.8. I've had a 17-85mm and although the range, USM and IS are all nice the rest isn't IMVHO and I wouldn't want one again. I replaced mine with a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 and it's a much better lens.

Although zoom lenses are flexible and very very useful and you say that you don't want a prime I'd urge you to look at them as on my 20D and presumably on your 30D also, a quality prime will put even a quality zoom in the shade.
 
f3.5-5.6 though... I wouldn't want a general purpose lens that slow when there are f2.8's to choose from.
 
woof woof said:
f3.5-5.6 though... I wouldn't want a general purpose lens that slow when there are f2.8's to choose from.
Click to expand...
Your photography style may need f2.8, but mine certainly doesn't. Almost everything I take photos of are either stationary or in very good light.

Those apertures are the same as the OP is used to with the kit lens. No, you can't take photos of fast moving objects in low light, nor can you have the narrower depth of field f2.8 brings. But then that's what cheap primes are for... Chasing after aperture for apertures sake is not always the best strategy IMHO
 
arad85 said:
Your photography style may need f2.8, but mine certainly doesn't. Almost everything I take photos of are either stationary or in very good light.

Those apertures are the same as the OP is used to with the kit lens. No, you can't take photos of fast moving objects in low light, nor can you have the narrower depth of field f2.8 brings. But then that's what cheap primes are for... Chasing after aperture for apertures sake is not always the best strategy IMHO
Click to expand...

I wouldn't advise "chasing after aperture for apertures sake" but the fact is that a wider aperture can give additional creative and shooting options if you want to use them.

Buy a slow / very slow lens like this and those options simply are not available, but on the other hand you gain a 2mm at the short end and a few mm at the long end.

I myself would not trade the creativity and shooting options that a wider aperture give for a longer zoom range, but it's a personal choice. Choices are best made after considering all the issues and looking at the options available.
 
I used a Canon 24-105 f/4 last year on holiday hand held in France and it was absolutely fine 99% of the time. The only time it strugled was in a dingy museum. Most of my shooting is done outside in daylight so f/3.5 for me is fine. It all depends on what the OP shoots most of the time.
 
woof woof said:
I wouldn't advise "chasing after aperture for apertures sake" but the fact is that a wider aperture can give additional creative and shooting options if you want to use them.
Click to expand...
And so does a 4 stop IS system.... which the Tamron doesn't have (the VC one is not as good quality as I'm sure you know). Your reply basically came across as "it's not worth it as they aren't 2.8".

Additionally, whilst the 15-85 isn't as fast, it is sharper wide open than the Tamron, so to get the same picture, you might need to close it up a bit to get the sharpness. See here: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=1 for example crops.

woof woof said:
I myself would not trade the creativity and shooting options that a wider aperture give for a longer zoom range, but it's a personal choice. Choices are best made after considering all the issues and looking at the options available.
Click to expand...
Precisely. You wouldn't, but you appear to regard the tradeoffs as being aperture and zoom range. I would also add to that equation IS, across the frame image sharpness and all round usability.

We have just done this exercise ourselves for the 7D and ended up with the 15-85 as our GP walkabout lens. And yes, we did consider the Tamron and Canon 17-5xs.
 
Wow, thanks for even more in depth answers - I guess if money was no object then I wouldn't have asked the original question, however money is a bit tight and I'll have to compromise somewhat, for now.... I really would like the 15 - 85 Canon, but I have looked at the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM which gets excellent reviews and doesn't cost the earth...

Thanks again to everyone who replied :-)
 
Last edited:
squishy said:
It's sharper when they are both wide open, but at the same aperture they are they seem the same. Comparing f/2.8 on the tamron to f/4 on the canon seems a little pointless.
Click to expand...
What I meant was, in order to get as sharp an image out of the Tamron, you have to stop it down. This negates the advantage of the 2.8 as whilst you may have 2.8, you may feel the pictures you get out of it are not very good wide open so never actually want to use it there....

This may not be so much of an issue with an 8Mpix camera, but certainly played on my mind when deciding on a lens for a 18Mpix camera (see, yet another variable in the "which lens" equation ;)).

Looking at the 18-55 II vs the 17-85 IS (i.e. the cheap zoom) here: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=396&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=1 doesn't show there to be much of a difference

To the OP: perhaps save some more pennies?
 
Look at upgrading to one of those 18 mega pixel bodies (550D, 600D, 60D or 7D). That sensor is really very good. However, that 18-55 I suspect will be woefully inadequate on any of those.
 
arad85 said:
What I meant was, in order to get as sharp an image out of the Tamron, you have to stop it down. This negates the advantage of the 2.8 as whilst you may have 2.8, you may feel the pictures you get out of it are not very good wide open so never actually want to use it there....

This may not be so much of an issue with an 8Mpix camera, but certainly played on my mind when deciding on a lens for a 18Mpix camera (see, yet another variable in the "which lens" equation ;)).

Looking at the 18-55 II vs the 17-85 IS (i.e. the cheap zoom) here: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=396&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=1 doesn't show there to be much of a difference

To the OP: perhaps save some more pennies?
Click to expand...

Hmmmm, yes it looks like that to me... :'(
 
arad85 said:
Looking at the 18-55 II vs the 17-85 IS (i.e. the cheap zoom) here: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=396&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=1 doesn't show there to be much of a difference
Click to expand...

The difference is in the better build quality, bigger zoom range and fast and silent USM focus motor. The 17-85 may not be the best lens in the world but I used one for a while and it is an excellent walkabout/holiday lens.

I also found the colour, sharpness and contrast to be quite a bit better compared to the 18-55 and the 18-55 IS.

Cheers
 
Bikemansteve said:
Hmmmm, yes it looks like that to me... :'(
Click to expand...
Or you could drop the change to a zoom just invest in a 50mm 1.8 and see if that opens up some avenues for understanding what your camera is capable of. Stopped down a little, that's a hell of a performer for the cost (around £80 delivered from Kerso on here)....
 
highpriest said:
The difference is in the better build quality, bigger zoom range and fast and silent USM focus motor. The 17-85 may not be the best lens in the world but I used one for a while and it is an excellent walkabout/holiday lens.

I also found the colour, sharpness and contrast to be quite a bit better compared to the 18-55 and the 18-55 IS.

Cheers
Click to expand...
It may be me that's over analysing it then. I don't have first hand experience of the 17-85....
 
Bikemansteve said:
Wow, thanks for even more in depth answers - I guess if money was no object then I wouldn't have asked the original question, however money is a bit tight and I'll have to compromise somewhat, for now.... I really would like the 15 - 85 Canon, but I have looked at the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM which gets excellent reviews and doesn't cost the earth...

Thanks again to everyone who replied :-)
Click to expand...

Sounds like the sensible choice considering your budget tbh, try not to get too bogged down or indeed disheartened by trudging over endless pixel peeping lab charts and magnified edge crops etc etc blah blah blah. Remember that whatever you buy will be an improvement in build, handling and picture quality over what you have.

I have never been wowed by a photograph because it was super sharp under a magnifying glass in the top right corner or anywhere else but because it was a bl***y good shot. :thumbs:
 
Gazamonk said:
Sounds like the sensible choice considering your budget tbh, try not to get too bogged down or indeed disheartened by trudging over endless pixel peeping lab charts and magnified edge crops etc etc blah blah blah. Remember that whatever you buy will be an improvement in build, handling and picture quality over what you have.

I have never been wowed by a photograph because it was super sharp under a magnifying glass in the top right corner or anywhere else but because it was a bl***y good shot. :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree, I don't pretend to be a pro togger in any way at all, but I do like what you call a good shot - If the subject composition, lighting, framing etc etc is right I think that more than makes up for very minimal differences in absolute perfection of total clarity(PP can improve things a fair bit) - I guess we could have the top spec Canon or Nikon costing many £1000's, but if the shot itself is crap it doesn't matter how much your equipment costs... :shrug:

.....opens up a can of worms....:naughty:
 
Last edited:
arad85 said:
And so does a 4 stop IS system.... which the Tamron doesn't have (the VC one is not as good quality as I'm sure you know). Your reply basically came across as "it's not worth it as they aren't 2.8".

Additionally, whilst the 15-85 isn't as fast, it is sharper wide open than the Tamron, so to get the same picture, you might need to close it up a bit to get the sharpness. See here: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=1 for example crops.

Precisely. You wouldn't, but you appear to regard the tradeoffs as being aperture and zoom range. I would also add to that equation IS, across the frame image sharpness and all round usability.

We have just done this exercise ourselves for the 7D and ended up with the 15-85 as our GP walkabout lens. And yes, we did consider the Tamron and Canon 17-5xs.
Click to expand...

I dunno where to start with that lot :) but as it may help the op I'll try and answer a couple of points...

"Your reply basically came across as "it's not worth it as they aren't 2.8"."

A slow lens like the 15-85mm at least has IS and a good zoom range and they are creative options and as equally valid as a lens offering both faster low light shooting and the creative use of a wide aperture.

Actually you can have IS on a 17-50mm f2.8 these days so maybe the argument for the slower lens comes down to zoom range, price and possibly with some lenses size and weight too.

Choices... but I personally believe that the wider aperture lenses give the most creative opportunities, you believe differently and the op can make his own mind up.

As for the 15-85mm being sharper wide open, not at f2.8 it isn't :lol:

OP. Good luck with the Siggy if you go for it.
 
Last edited:
Nobody has mentioned the extra light passing through the lens giving a lovely brighter image when looking through the viewfinder with a faster lens (F.Y.I. Steve your 30D also has a pentaprism as opposed to the pentamirror of the 500d so your viewfinder image is brighter anyway, another +1 for the 30D)

Anyway, whatever you get enjoy it and have fun.:thumbs:
 
woof woof said:
A slow lens like the 15-85mm at least has IS and a good zoom range and they are creative options and as equally valid as a lens offering both faster low light shooting and the creative use of a wide aperture.
Click to expand...
Good. We agree on that :)

woof woof said:
Actually you can have IS on a 17-50mm f2.8 these days so maybe the argument for the slower lens comes down to zoom range, price and possibly with some lenses size and weight too.
Click to expand...
Yes, but either the IS degrades the lens (as in the Tamron), or you have to pay top dollar for the Canon (I kind of discounted Sigmas version as it isn't highly regarded for the price either).

woof woof said:
but I personally believe that the wider aperture lenses give the most creative opportunities
Click to expand...
If you do portraits or low light - yes, if your thing is buildings/landscapes, no. If you do a bit of everything, then maybe. It's all about what you are photoing.

woof woof said:
As for the 15-85mm being sharper wide open, not at f2.8 it isn't :lol:
Click to expand...
Teehee... But I'd probably find myself avoiding 2.8 as it would annoy me when I looked at the images (yes, I pixel peep, but I can usually spot even a slightly out of focus image at a more normal size).

But then what I'm after is different to you.

woof woof said:
OP. Good luck with the Siggy if you go for it.
Click to expand...
:agree: But looking at the OP:

Bikemansteve said:
I use it for all round shots - some scenic, some portrait, some close ups - basically, I don't specialise in just landscapes or just portraits so don't want a prime lens + I don't do prints larger than A4, but I do get excellent quality prints from my current camera....
Click to expand...
If you're happy with what you've got, why not just stick with what you have and be happy ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top