New camera or new lens?

[Joshwain]

Before anyone answers with this, I know the answer to the title depends on what I shoot and how happy I am with what I already have so I've beaten you to that one

Anyway, I currently have the Canon 20D, the 18-55mm kit lens and the 55-250mm lens. I plan to try and get more involved in landscape photography in the new year however I've accepted that my budget won't be allowing any decent lenses such as the 10-22mm or even the 15-85mm in the near future with money left for some decent filters.

So. Bearing in mind I need to set aside some money for filters and how the 20D is becoming insanely outclassed, I'm tempted to upgrade to the 50D after Christmas.

I can either go all out on a lens to put on an outdated camera and focus just on landscapes or on a newer camera to possibly focus on other areas of photography at the same time with the basic kit lens. I may even find myself less embarrassed in public with a newer camera and go out with it more often.

I don't know, I often just find myself typing whatever I think on here and then thinking "what am I posting for?"

It's too late to delete it all so it would be interesting to hear what you lot have to say

 

[sdb123]

I think it's pointless getting a better body without using the appropriate level of lenses to realise the benefits.....all IMO of course.

If it were me, I'd get a decent lens to cover the shots I needed it to (in your case landscapes) and practice my technique and then enjoy the results!

 

[seriousrikk]

First, don't be embarrassed by your camera!!! The 20D is still very capable and I took some of my best landscape shots on mine.

Your lenses while not the best, are absolutely fine for landscape photography.

Mainly for landscape work you stop your aperture down to between F8 and F11 and your lenses will be much sharper there. The only problem I forsee is your front element rotates, making filter use harder.

What other areas interest you?

 

[woof woof]

So. Bearing in mind I need to set aside some money for filters and how the 20D is becoming insanely outclassed, I'm tempted to upgrade to the 50D after Christmas.

I had a 20D for something like 7 years and when I got m5 5D I was disappointed that it didn't outclass the 20D only really pulling ahead at the highest ISO's.

Personally I think that unless you are specifically looking to improve in an area in which the 20D is relatively weak when compared to newer cameras... such as ISO 3200 and above (3200 takes care and it doesn't go any higher,) relatively low resolution, low frame rate, relatively low tech focusing system etc... it should be just fine and should give you good results for landscapes and similar photography at A3 and under if you can avoid excessive pixel peeping which may show up the relatively low resolution.

I don't know what to say about lenses. A wise man said years ago that lens sharpness wasn't and issue and I'd agree although distortion, vignetting and CA can be issues and wide aperture primes are lovely and tempting as are constant aperture zooms but once stopped down the vast majority of lenses get the job done, IMVHO.

In your position I think I'd think a little more about what's missing from my images and if anything is missing, "pop" perhaps... perhaps look at image content and post capture processing before spending money on kit.

 

[The Greek]

Its Christmas! Treat yourself to both lol

The 20d is a great camera, had one myself.

Lenses
55-200 .... Good lens, worth keeping
18-55 ....... Does a job, for now.


Personally, I would looking to upgrade the camera body and add lenses at a later date.

 

[DizMatt]

if you're pushed for what you can spend, what about a 17-50 sigma or tamron
or even the 18-55 IS mk2 version as this far outstripped the mkI, I had this on a 350D

also filters. I got some grad filters on the cheapo for about 40-50 quid and a holder from ebay for 4 quid
in comparison a friend got some pro grad filters for about 400 notes!! ouch
he is rather good at landscapes though tbh, that outlay would be wasted on me!

 

[Joshwain]

Thanks for all the replies, I didn't expect so many after such a rambling!

What other areas interest you?

Generally just landscapes and nature, I'd love to have the confidence for the odd bit of urban photography but you know...

In your position I think I'd think a little more about what's missing from my images and if anything is missing, "pop" perhaps... perhaps look at image content and post capture processing before spending money on kit.

I think that would be quite a good idea. I'm planning on attempting another Photo52 in the new year (seeing as I failed this year) so that could be quite a help if I waited before splashing out on new gear!

Its Christmas! Treat yourself to both lol

I wish I could! I'm a student though and that basically says it all I've done well to find what money I have saved

if you're pushed for what you can spend, what about a 17-50 sigma or tamron
or even the 18-55 IS mk2 version as this far outstripped the mkI

I've actually been looking at the Sigma 18-50mm which seems decently priced, giving me plenty to spend on other things. With such a price difference between that and the 17-50mm I think I need to get some research done and see what's so special about the latter


I think you've all almost talked me out of going for the camera upgrade, maybe it's just a case of money burning a hole in my pocket

 

[woof woof]

G.A.S. We all get it

I have it all the time.

 

[Joshwain]

G.A.S. We all get it

I have it all the time.

Google had to help me out with that one
And I must have exactly that, I even bought myself a 24-105mm coffee mug to make myself feel better :bonk: Such a shame it isn't the real thing!

 

[LongLensPhotography]

Lenses! your current ones are not even pushing the limits of 20D.

btw I have 28-135mm 1:2.5L II USM lens mug given as a present

 

[4wd]

With landscapes it's all about composition and lighting - being in the right spot at the right time.
Good PP skills are important and will often change an OK shot into something special.
Camera and lenses hardly come into it IMO unless you are doing poster size prints.

 

[DizMatt]

if you can get a 17-50 f2.8 either tamron or sigma then you will have
wide angle,
good sharpness when stopped down
IS or OS maybe for low light and f2.8 to keep you versitile
f2.8 for portraits when you want it at 50mm

the canon or nikon native ones are often better but twice the price and I would instead spend that money on a tripod and gradient filters.
also the tamron 17-50 has a smaller filter size than the 17-55 canon (for example) which means filters are cheaper! woohoo!

You can't push the boundaries of high ISO with a 20D I think compared to newer cameras, but the dynamic range is very good iirc.

 

[seriousrikk]

I'd second suggestions of a lens in the 17-50mm range.

These have higher sharpness than your current lenses, and also have a static front element which makes used of ND grad filters and polarisers easier. Buy used and you will still have some money from your 50D sized budged for a square filter system and a polariser...

Also, do you have a tripod?

 

[ultrablue187]

I'm another for the 17 - 50 suggestion. I got my Tamron f/2.8 this week, and the colours, contrast and sharpness far surpass the Canon 18-55 it is replacing (or my copy, at least). The extra 1mm is more noticeable than I imagined, so may help your landscapes. I think it's a great value lens!

It's true about a newer body having better ISO performance, but hopefully you'll have a mono/tripod for any lower light landscapes in the meantime?

 

[Joshwain]

btw I have 28-135mm 1:2.5L II USM lens mug given as a present

They're great aren't they!

if you can get a 17-50 f2.8 either tamron or sigma then you will have
wide angle,
good sharpness when stopped down
IS or OS maybe for low light and f2.8 to keep you versitile
f2.8 for portraits when you want it at 50mm

the canon or nikon native ones are often better but twice the price and I would instead spend that money on a tripod and gradient filters.
also the tamron 17-50 has a smaller filter size than the 17-55 canon (for example) which means filters are cheaper! woohoo!

That actually sounds like a good idea, the perfect idea in fact. I've just been looking at the Tamron 17-50, it looks reasonably priced new and basically ticks all the boxes so I reckon it will be an essential buy if I come across any used ones.

I'm another for the 17 - 50 suggestion. I got my Tamron f/2.8 this week, and the colours, contrast and sharpness far surpass the Canon 18-55 it is replacing (or my copy, at least). The extra 1mm is more noticeable than I imagined, so may help your landscapes. I think it's a great value lens!

Great! It's all sounding a good, I just need to do a bit more research to make sure it really would suit and then to get lucky by coming across a used one to save a few pennies

Also, do you have a tripod?

but hopefully you'll have a mono/tripod for any lower light landscapes in the meantime?

I had a Redsnapper 324 come through the other day, so yes