Upgrade The Lens Not The Camera

CaptainPenguin

CaptainPenguin

Suspended / Banned
Messages
5,161
Name
Nigel Cliff
Edit My Images
Yes
Early next year I have an endowment policy maturing so the paln was (After a few grand gets put away for my daughters wedding) to change my EOS 350D for a 40d or even a 50D.However after reading a number of posts on here recently I wonder if I should change the lenses instead.I do a lot of photography of a local amateur football team and I find from November through to February that unless I am lucky it its to dull by the second half to get a decent shutter speed even at 1600ASA with my Canon 70-210f4(the old version) so I was initially thinking that the 40&50 would give me a higher ASA speed.
However from what I have read on here I wonder if a Canon 70-300 IS USM and also the 28-135 IS USM might be a better bet as they are better quality glass and will also with the Image Stabilization allow me to go down to 1/60th of a second and still get usable results

Tips from any users of these lenses would be much appreciated
 
Having got wed and paid for a lot of it myself last year what I would say is spend a lot of your time persuading your daughter that an Elvis impersonator in Vegas would be a great wedding! Then you might have some money left over for kit...
 
Two things come to mind here...

The 350D you have at the moment isn't particularly brilliant at high ISO's, so a change in body would seem reasonable, but going for a 70-200 f2.8 would make sense also...

Personally I'd go for broke and do both :eek:

Steve
 
IS won't help you freeze the motion of football players, it only helps with camera shake.
 
I used to have a 350/400D and used it a lot, but at low light levels it was noisy...even with L glass. I now have the 40D and even at 1600 ISO, the noise is minimal. I would say, upgrade to a 40D (cheaper than the 50D and magazines indicate not that much difference) then stick with that and just add good quality glass.

I use the 24-70mm f2.8 L and the 70-200 f2.8 L more than anything else.
 
Jelster said:
Two things come to mind here...

The 350D you have at the moment isn't particularly brilliant at high ISO's, so a change in body would seem reasonable, but going for a 70-200 f2.8 would make sense also...

Personally I'd go for broke and do both :eek:

Steve
Click to expand...

Steve much as I would like the 70-200 it is out of my price range,however I could upgrade the 350 to a 400 because the cost would be minimal
 
CaptainPenguin said:
... will also with the Image Stabilization allow me to go down to 1/60th of a second and still get usable results
Click to expand...

1/60 and a moving target will result in blurred subject, you need to be looking at faster lenses - i.e. f2.8 or more
 
photostar_1 said:
I used to have a 350/400D and used it a lot, but at low light levels it was noisy...even with L glass. I now have the 40D and even at 1600 ISO, the noise is minimal. I would say, upgrade to a 40D (cheaper than the 50D and magazines indicate not that much difference) then stick with that and just add good quality glass.

I use the 24-70mm f2.8 L and the 70-200 f2.8 L more than anything else.
Click to expand...

It is an either or in that although I could afford the lenses plus an upgrade to a 400D the lenses plus a 40D are out of my price range,
 
The Siggy 70-200 f/2.8 is a good value lens and will do what you are asking without busting the bank too much.
 
sprog said:
The Siggy 70-200 f/2.8 is a good value lens and will do what you are asking without busting the bank too much.
Click to expand...

Yeah, this. Mine was £370 second hand which is excellent value really.
 
CaptainPenguin said:
It is an either or in that although I could afford the lenses plus an upgrade to a 400D the lenses plus a 40D are out of my price range,
Click to expand...

Bake the wedding cake yourself, that should save enough ;¬)

As mentioned, it's the shutter speed that's important = fast glass + high ISO (optimally). Have a look at the 135/2, sharp wide open and gives the equivalent 215mm.

85/1.8 is also a great lens (effectively 136mm on 350D). Remember that you have to nail the focus with faster apertures.
 
rdh said:
Bake the wedding cake yourself, that should save enough ;¬)

As mentioned, it's the shutter speed that's important = fast glass + high ISO (optimally). Have a look at the 135/2, sharp wide open and gives the equivalent 215mm.

85/1.8 is also a great lens (effectively 136mm on 350D). Remember that you have to nail the focus with faster apertures.
Click to expand...

We already have one friend doing the cake and another doing the Dresses and I am definately not doing the photo's,did a family wedding once and although the shots were fine the organisation was a nightmare.

Anyhow not sure that the 135mm would we long enough,I used my manual focus 135mm f 2.8 on Saturday and although I got 1 good shot I did have to do some severe cropping

http://www.flickr.com/photos/captainpenguin/3013603164/
 
The problem you def have is lens speed... I def agree with the others... and if sports photography is your thing then you need fast glass... there is no getting away from it...

I have one of the lenses you are considering and a lens you might consider but there is one issue that no one has mentioned...

the 28-135 is actually an f5.6 at the 135mm range!

I also have a canon IS 75 to 300 which im sure is an f6.3 at the 300mm range...

If you really enjoy sports photography... just now go for the faster body... but start saving as for your long term enjoyment you need something at f2.8! you could always get a buy it now pay it up over time deal!

Have you consided a fixed focal length and there is always ebay for a bargain!
 
I had a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 which was good in low light, so I would echo Sprog and Robmillar and say to get one of those and possibly a 2nd hand 40D which will give you the best of both worlds.
 
the 400D will not be of any improvement noise wise over the 350D IMO!
IS is going to be useless. in sports togging.

your 2 only options are getting a camera with a high iso and low noise, the other option is faster glass 2.8 should be the only lenses you need to look at.

agreed with looking at the sigma Variants, not too expensive not much loss of IQ compared to the similar L glass.
 
Get a 40d and a Sigma/tamron 70-200 f2.8 and a Sigma 24-70 f2.8/ Tamron 28-75 f2.8 if you need them

Simple :)
 
CaptainPenguin said:
Steve much as I would like the 70-200 it is out of my price range,however I could upgrade the 350 to a 400 because the cost would be minimal
Click to expand...

It doesn't have to be the Canon, the Sigma gets good reviews for the money. But a 40D will certainly give you better noise/ISO performance than the 350 or 400. Used 40D & Sigma 70-200 could be the way to go....

Steve
 
You could always kill two budgies with the one brick and buy a new camera and lens on the strength that they would be an investment for taking pics with at your daughter's wedding ;)
 
Flash In The Pan said:
You could always kill two budgies with the one brick and buy a new camera and lens on the strength that they would be an investment for taking pics with at your daughter's wedding ;)
Click to expand...

And the chances of getting that one past "She who must be obeyed" are zero
 
but surely if you pointed out how "last season" your camera is along with the amount you saved on the 40d then she would notice the bargain it is:)(missus tried both on me before)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top