New EOS 40D or Canon 'L' Series Lens

jonkull

I've been away from photography since I took classes as a teenager 20 years ago. I picked up a Canon EOS 20D a couple of years back but haven't really used it for anything beyond snapshots of family and friends, our new baby and some vacation pictures. That said my last trip to Arizona has rekindled my interest in photography.

I've noticed that the quality of the images taken with my wife's point & shoot Digital Elph are (surprisingly) better than the ones taken in the same place, at the same time, in the same lighting as the images from my 20D. The 20D seems duller, softer and has more grain. I know her Elph has the newer DIGIC III processor and my 20D has the DIGIC II so I've been considering upgrading the body to a 40D assuming the processor is a factor. I've also been considering keeping the 20D and getting a nicer lens instead. I'm not really sure which one will benefit me more at this point.

Anyway now that the long story is out of the way...Is the quality of the L series lenses really that much better than the standard Canon lenses (enough to justify the $$$) and will an L lens with my 20D improve the quality of my images more so than getting a 40D body and using it with the lenses I already have?

ziggy53

jonkull wrote:

... I've noticed that the quality of the images taken with my wife's point & shoot Digital Elph are (surprisingly) better than the ones taken in the same place, at the same time, in the same lighting as the images from my 20D. The 20D seems duller, softer and has more grain. I know her Elph has the newer DIGIC III processor and my 20D has the DIGIC II so I've been considering upgrading the body to a 40D assuming the processor is a factor. I've also been considering keeping the 20D and getting a nicer lens instead. I'm not really sure which one will benefit me more at this point.

Anyway now that the long story is out of the way...Is the quality of the L series lenses really that much better than the standard Canon lenses (enough to justify the $$$) and will an L lens with my 20D improve the quality of my images more so than getting a 40D body and using it with the lenses I already have?

Jonkull, welcome to the Digital Grin.

It would be very nice to know what lenses you have now, in order to know what might be done to improve your situation.

As a rule, lenses will make much more difference than will the camera body. The Canon 20D is not shiny and new anymore but it is still capable. I suspect that some post-processing could also improve your situation. If you have any sample images you can post that might also help us understand.

So, which lenses do you have and can you post some samples of past images?

Richard

Welcome to Dgrin . What lenses are you shooting with? While the 20D is a little old, it is a very good camera. I´m guessing that upgrading the body without changing the lens isn´t going to buy you anything. It might also be a matter of the processing you are doing (or not doing). What do you do in post?

colourbox

I still use a Rebel XT because I put the money into lenses. I don't regret this. I get the images I want now, because I determined that the problem was with the capabilities of my original lens.

I mention that because you should work out exactly what would make your pictures look better. If it's sensor noise, focus points, or high ISO limits, maybe you need a better body. But if it's about image microcontrast, wider apertures, color purity, depth of field, field of view, or sharpness, then you might need a better lens. In my specific case, I decided what I needed was a larger aperture for low-light shooting and depth-of-field control. I couldn't solve that with a new body. Well, I could shoot better in low light with the high-ISO performance of a new body, but the lens solved more problems. So think through it like that.

jonkull

Hey Guys. Thanks for the responses.

I'll try to post a couple of pictures when I get home from work tonight but in the meantime...In answer to your question about lenses I have the cheapo Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS SLR Lens that was included with my kit when I bought the camera. I just googled it and see it retails for $140. Hmmm...probably need a better lens.

As far as post-processing I sit in front of a computer playing with Photoshop all day long at work so when I get home it's the last thing I want to do. Needless to say I have a large folder of images that need post-processing and I know I can clean a lot of them up but if I could I'd like to start from a better quality image in the first place.

paddler4

Jon,

What you are seeing may have nothing to do with the quality of the camera. Many point and shoot cameras apply a lot of sharpening to images in converting them to JPEG. I don't know the 20D, but most DSLRs have several picture styles that vary in this respect. My first DSLR was a Canon XTi,. At that point, I was still shooting JPEGs with my Canon. At first I was really startled when Paint Shop Pro routinely suggested more sharpening for pictures I took with that camera than for those I took with a small Pentax P&S. This was even more true with my son's Sony point and shoot.

I wondered if there was something wrong with my XTi. Nope. The XTi's recipes for JPEGs simply sharpened less. Once I learned a bit about editing, the images from the XTi were far superior to the point and shoot. And that was with the old Canon kit lens, which is a pretty soft lens. So before you spend a lot of money, if you have not already learned a bit about editing, try that. And you don't need to buy the full blown photoshop to do this. there are capable editors for under $100.

Dan

jonkull

colourbox wrote:

But if it's about image microcontrast, wider apertures, color purity, depth of field, field of view, or sharpness, then you might need a better lens.

You might be right. Now to figure out which one.

colourbox

paddler4 wrote:

What you are seeing may have nothing to do with the quality of the camera....Once I learned a bit about editing, the images from the XTi were far superior to the point and shoot. And that was with the old Canon kit lens, which is a pretty soft lens.

That is a really good insight. To equalize between the point and shoot and the SLR, if shooting JPEG tweak the default processing in the camera for color, sharpness, etc. If you are shooting raw, I would recommend tweaking the default import settings in the raw processor (DPP, Camera Raw, etc.) for the parameters that are bugging you. Either way, get it so that you like the defaults, so that you don't have to spend a lot of time processing them later, and so you can try to match the results you like from the P&S. If you have reached the limits of what the camera or raw processor can do automatically and you still don't like the images, maybe you do need better hardware, whether that is camera or lens.

jonkull

I shoot RAW and bracket my shots. I sometimes (when I'm not too lazy) composite multiple shots to get a better exposure. I'm fairly familiar with Photoshop. I've been using it since version 2 and use it professionally on a daily basis in my work so editing and post processing are no big deal. Like I said in my original post though I've been away from photography for a while. I think what I need to do is (as was suggested) play around with the settings in the camera to get a better source image and spend more time tweaking my Camera Raw settings. I think that's possibly the reason why I get better pictures with the P&S camera. They're set up for instant gratification...more vivid color, sharper pictures straight out of the box. I suppose DSLRs are more like shooting film where they require more time in the 'darkroom'. I think I got used to using my wife's camera and when I went back to the 20D after not having used it in several months I had a little bit of 'culture shock'.

I could probably do some searches but since we're all here...I would like to get a new lens regardless and would still like to know how much better the Canon L series is over the standard lenses. How about cheaper alternatives to the Canon L?

ziggy53

jonkull wrote:

... I could probably do some searches but since we're all here...I would like to get a new lens regardless and would still like to know how much better the Canon L series is over the standard lenses. How about cheaper alternatives to the Canon L?

My travel kit for the Canon 1.6x crop cameras is:

Sigma 10-20mm, f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM
Canon EF-S 17-55mm, f/2.8 IS USM
Canon EF 70-200mm, f/4L IS USM
Canon EF 50mm, f/1.4 USM
Tamron 1.4x teleconverter
Canon 1.4x teleconverter

Then i add a couple of close focus diopter lenses and there is little that I cannot cover.

The Tamron 17-50mm, F/2.8 XR Di-II LD SP Aspherical (IF) is a pretty good substitute for the Canon standard zoom, but I personally do think that the Canon 17-55mm, IS is worth the money. The Canon 70-200mm, f4L IS is absolutely worth it unless you shoot action/sports at night and then the f2.8 version is recommended. It even tolerates the Canon 1.4x teleconverter without giving up much in good light.

Toshido

Ziggy...

Why both the tamron and Canon 1.4 teleconvertors?

NeilL

This

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/40D/index.htm

is a credible comparison of the 20D and 40D. Apparently the 20D has been left well and truly behind in the dust of newer technology. Well, that's not surprising, is it? It's what we want and try for with new tech, after all. On the other hand, the XTi compares very favorably with the 40D, which in turn compares very favorably with the 1DII - on some fairly critical measures.

Because I have been in the process of selling my 24-70 f2.8L and replacing it with a new 24-105 f4L IS USM (for a 40D body), I have refreshed my information about comparisons of a number of Canon lenses. My understanding is that the later model zooms, L and otherwise, perform very closely in their overlapping ranges, discounting the ends, and between f5.6 and 8. So, depending on your typical focal range and aperture, there might not be much advantage in "upgrading" your lens.

If I were you I'd go for a later body, no question!

Neil

ziggy53

Toshido wrote:

Ziggy...

Why both the tamron and Canon 1.4 teleconvertors?

The Tamron "F" converter works very nicely with the 50mm, f1.4, especially when used with the close focus diopter. The Tamron can also mount every lens that I own and it can piggyback the Canon converter (only good for center crops however.)

The Tamron is also pretty inexpensive so it can do "dangerous duty" (mostly inclement weather).

The Canon converter works much, much better with the 70-200mm zooms.

jonkull

It's funny because the research I've been doing via google searches since posting here seems to be split down the middle. I've seen side by side images (no post processing) where the 20D looks better than the 40D (more color saturation, better contrast, more detail, less noise) and other side by side comparisons where the 40D looks better. Of course better is often subjective. I'm taking a road trip this weekend with a friend of mine. I'm going to experiment more with the camera's internal settings and see what I come back with. I'll decide about lenses and bodies after that.

NeilL

If you're looking at jpgs, they're "processed", by definition. That fact is even more relevant if the jpgs were created in camera, as opposed to by a photoeditor.

MT Stringer

I suggest you get some better glass and keep to 20D for now. I shoot mainly high school sports, and youth sports also. Sometimes, I have to look at the exif information to see which camera I was using. Was it the RebelXT, 20D, 30D, 40D or 1D MK III. I've had them all. Once I get through tweaking the pics for exposure, contrast, saturation, sharpness, cropping, etc, they all kinda look alike. I think the main reason is I have been using basically the same few lenses - Sigma 120-300 f/2.8, Sigma 70-200 f/2.8, Canon 70-200 f/2.8, Canon 100 f/2. All of these lenses perform well for me, regardless of which body is attached.

Good luck.
Mike

jonkull

Well I've decided to keep my 20D and invest in a new lens. I'm looking at the Tamron SP 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD-IF and Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical IF EX DG HSM. Both are better than the 'kit' lens I have now. From what I've read they're pretty similar outside of build quality.

Does anyone have any experience with either of these lenses?

Richard

jonkull wrote:

Well I've decided to keep my 20D and invest in a new lens. I'm looking at the Tamron SP 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD-IF and Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical IF EX DG HSM. Both are better than the 'kit' lens I have now. From what I've read they're pretty similar outside of build quality.

Does anyone have any experience with either of these lenses?

I have the Tammy and love it. It's a real bargain. The optics are excellent. The only downside I have found is that it tends to hunt in low light.

jonkull

Well I ordered the Tamron...and a 40D. I'm going to test the lens with my 20D first and then decide if I need the new body or not.

One thing I'm wondering about is the softness of the Tamron in the corners and QC issues I've been reading about. In some of the reviews of this lens the reviewers had to return their lenses multiple times before they got one that focused well and was sharp. A lot of these reviews seem to be a year plus old. I'm wondering if things have changed.

Jabba

Nobody's asked about ISO?! I bet you've got it set on Auto. Try the lower ISO settings and some sharpening- there's no reason a 20D can't produce amazing images. That being said, new glass is always a nice addition!~

MT Stringer

@jonkull - I've been happy with my Tamron. I've used it on a 20D, 30D, 40D and 1D MK III. No problems encountered on my end.
Here's an example.
Mike

NeilL

Jabba wrote:

Nobody's asked about ISO?! I bet you've got it set on Auto. Try the lower ISO settings and some sharpening- there's no reason a 20D can't produce amazing images. That being said, new glass is always a nice addition!~

I don't think it's "amazing" that's at issue here, but rather body limitations.