New lens or new camera

Bobby uk

Bobby uk

Suspended / Banned
Messages
771
Name
Rob
Edit My Images
Yes
Just after a bit of a vote on this one?
Im currently using a canon 50d the kit lens 18-55 is and the 28-135 is. Have been planning on getting the 17-40L or the 17-55 but now not sure on maybe changing the camera for a 7d as I can pic it up for the same sort of price, and then just keep using the glass I already have.
I mainly shoot landscape and night and occasionally a bit of macro.

So what do you guys think new camera or new lens?
 
I always go for a lens first. The 17-55 is a really good lens that will serve you well.
 
In my opinion the glass is the more important component of the camera. I would stick with the 50D and buy better lenses. Personally if you can live with the shorter length I would go for the 17-40L rather than the 17-55. I know others will disagree with me on this. At the end of the day it is all a matter of personal choice. Do your research on both lenses first but whichever you buy you will get better results than your current lenses on your 50D.

I would add that neither the 17-40 or 17-55 will be much good for macro. Far too short.
 
I think the 7d wouldn't be a huge improvement over the 50d for landscape or macro !…..may be a 6d or 5d mk11 due to the ff sensor but you would need a 17-40 l for landscape ,
Getting a wide lens for your 50d i.e. 10-20 canon or sigma may be another way to go i have a Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM used it on my 50d and it's ok on my 1d mk1v ( from 12mm onwards ) ……just a thought !
 
You could always look at the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 which is better than the kit lens and use the money left over to buy another lens or other equipment. I'd always go glass first and body secondary.
 
Thanks for all the advice guys. With regards to the 40L and the 55 i have been looking at the two for months but just cant seem to make my mind up. Obviously the 40 is an L version and has a better weather seal but the 55 has a smaller apature so better in low light.
With regards to the camera, sometimes its nice to here people say stick with what you have got. And i know that the glass should always be the first priority but there is always the temptation of a 'better camera'
 
Bobby uk said:
Thanks for all the advice guys. With regards to the 40L and the 55 i have been looking at the two for months but just cant seem to make my mind up. Obviously the 40 is an L version and has a better weather seal but the 55 has a smaller apature so better in low light.
With regards to the camera, sometimes its nice to here people say stick with what you have got. And i know that the glass should always be the first priority but there is always the temptation of a 'better camera'
Click to expand...

I own both and on the crop body get the 17-55, more reach, faster and in my opinion sharper (but not by much) and the images just look better from it but I cant put my finger on why. The 17-55 is no less or more weather sealed than your camera so I wouldn't even care about that tbh and i would take precautions against the weather no matter what lens I had on.
 
Gazamonk said:
I own both and on the crop body get the 17-55, more reach, faster and in my opinion sharper (but not by much) and the images just look better from it but I cant put my finger on why. The 17-55 is no less or more weather sealed than your camera so I wouldn't even care about that tbh and i would take precautions against the weather no matter what lens I had on.
Click to expand...
Nicely put. Thanks
 
New camera would be limited by the kit lens (even 50D probably is), its waste of time, with a new lens You can get much more from 50D, and than save and upgrade Your camera.
 
Bobby uk said:
Thanks for all the advice guys. With regards to the 40L and the 55 i have been looking at the two for months but just cant seem to make my mind up. Obviously the 40 is an L version and has a better weather seal but the 55 has a smaller apature so better in low light.
With regards to the camera, sometimes its nice to here people say stick with what you have got. And i know that the glass should always be the first priority but there is always the temptation of a 'better camera'
Click to expand...

The 17 - 55mm f2.8 actually has a larger aperture, and is one stop faster. This isn't just about having f2.8, most lenses reach their optimum performance about 1 stop down from maximum, and the 17 - 55mm will still be at f4.0 then. Optically, it's on a par with most of the 'L' lenses, but the build quality doesn't quite match the price point for me, and its an EF-S lens so it won't work on a FF body if you want to go down that route. It covers the same range as the 17 - 40mm, and a bit more though.

Personally, I'd go with the 17 - 55mm for the extra stop and 15mm at the long end. You could probably find a used one in the classifieds if you check now and again, and that might be worth thinking about. They do hold their value well, but you'll save a bit, and it's a consideration if you ever want to sell it on.
 
I know what the obvious answer is but no you think a new 17-55 or a second hand one?
 
Second hand the build quality is excellent and they last. Let someone else take the new lens depreciation and get a lens you can sell on for little to no loss.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top