Spend my money for me

spike241

spike241

Suspended / Banned
Messages
709
Name
Selena
Edit My Images
Yes
This time next month I should have ~£1700 to spend on upgrading my camera and lenses. I may be able to bump this up to £2000 though.

I just want to be sure I'm not overlooking anything.

I primarily shoot outdoor pet photography (dogs mostly). It'd be nice to be able to shoot for longer near sunset.
At the moment my kit consists of a 450D, Sigma 150-500 and a nifty fifty.

I'm thinking of either a 70D or a 7D.
I can get a grey 70D for ~£750 so the price difference isn't much of an issue.

I'd also like a Canon 70-200 2.8.
I'm not sure whether to get an IS Mk1 or if the non-IS will be fine.
If I go for the Mk1 that's almost all of my budget gone.

I could also upgrade the nifty fifty (or go for an 85mm 1.8) and a wide angle may be useful but only if I had money to spare.

Which do you think would be the best way to go?

Selena
 
Last edited:
The AF on the 85mm is *way* better than the 50mm/1,8 (I'm assuming said dogs are moving).
 
Personally I would go for an IS over a non-IS 70-200 f2.8. I am still shooting a mkI and really like it, sharp wide open and reliable AF I toy with upgrading to the mkII but it seems a lot of money extra for a small improvement. I agree that the AF on the 85 f1.8 is streets ahead of the nifty fifty, both in terms of speed and reliability.
 
Ok, thanks.

So roughly that's £750 (at most) for the camera
~£900 for the 70-200 (SH)
~£300 for the 85mm (New although I'll probably buy SH)

Sounds like a plan! Just need to decide on a camera

Thanks a lot!
 
For shooting dogs outdoors, you will not go wrong with the 70-200; any version but best with IS.
 
Thanks. If I really want to make a go of this I might as well buy the best I can afford.
It'll be strange going from 500mm to 200 at first but it'll be worth it for shutter speeds and DoF.

I really appreciate the advice
 
I bought a few decent lens in preference to a better camera body as that was common wisdom, didn't really notice much gain in quality then I bought a 5D3 to replace a 5D1 and a 1Dmk2N, my lens were overnight instantly better.

I'd get a better body, your lens AF performance will improve in my opinion, check the Sigma will still work though before purchase.

Matt
 
The Sigma works on full frame and crop, so that's not a problem.

The only EF-S lens I have is the kit lens but I never use that so I have considered full frame (I would love a 5D Mk3 but can't afford one).

If I go for a 6D, I'll have to drop the 85mm.
 
If your shooting in the evening and need the low light you can't go wrong with FF. Only thing is you will probably want to stick with at least 400mm as 200 will seem really short!
 
Ok, I may have been sold on the 6D :D Sounds perfect.

I will be keeping the Sigma in case I need something longer but I think the 70-200 will be really useful as well.
 
bought a 70-200f2.8 IS mk2 last week, and i can't see myself using any other lens ever again!!
Have read about how good these are for years, but never thought thought i'd ever own one, but it's so much better than i could have dreamed of!
Hellishly expensive and i'm only a hobbyist shooter, but it's purely stunning!
 
I have a little dog photography business and use a 7D. The lens I use the vast majority of the time us the 70-200 2.8 IS II which is superb for fast moving dogs. I sometimes use a 24-105 f4 for wider portraits with the owner, or a 100-400 if the dog is running wildly at some distance.
 
spike241 said:
Ok, I may have been sold on the 6D :D Sounds perfect.

I will be keeping the Sigma in case I need something longer but I think the 70-200 will be really useful as well.
Click to expand...

6D only does 1/4000th which may cause u an issue shooting wide, AF is not great, the space between the points may cause you to focus on the wrong part of the animal and on areas of low contrast the outer point struggle to focus (speaking from experience, just sold 6D for D7100), bearing in mind you said you will be out side I would rather the 1/8000th of the 7D or 70D,
 
buzzlightweight said:
6D only does 1/4000th which may cause u an issue shooting wide, AF is not great, the space between the points may cause you to focus on the wrong part of the animal and on areas of low contrast the outer point struggle to focus (speaking from experience, just sold 6D for D7100), bearing in mind you said you will be out side I would rather the 1/8000th of the 7D or 70D,
Click to expand...

The issue with that is, how often are you going to be shooting at 1/8000th in dim light, especially when you consider the 7d's main failing is the questionable (note I didn't say bad!) high ISO performance. I don't think this should really be in assue in choosing your camera.

Regarding the 70-200, there is no doubting that the 'is ii' version is the best, but shooting moving dogs will render the 'is' unnecessary. I've seen second hand versions of the non-is go for under £700 here, so maybe getting that combination will leave you a few quid to spare for an extra lens, or maybe you'll need a software update if you shoot raw.
 
Thanks a lot.

Lots of decisions to make.
I don't think I'll need 1/8000 (I've only ever got as high as 1/4000 with the nifty fifty at 1.8) and it would be nice to have a full frame camera...
 
I cant understand why people are saying get the IS for shooting moving pets.. you will never even turn IS on for that..

Its good advice to get the IS as better to have and not need than to need and not have... but seriosuly.. you will find you never use it for moving pets photography...

a 7d and a 70-200 sounds good to me... theres better but not in your price range..
 
Looking at the prices for a 5d Mk3 I think that might be the better option for me. I can save up for the 70-200 after. I can also start getting used to a reduced focal length.

I thought the Mk3 was more expensive but I can get 2nd hand or grey for ~£1800.

Any thoughts?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top