Better glass or a new body?

eichert12 · November 12, 2007

I always hear everyone say that you should go with better glass over the latest body since a good lens will last much longer than the latest body. Given this how do you decide when it's time to get a new body? Is their a baseline body that you'd upgrade to before getting a better lens? It sounds like a lot of people think upgrading from an XT/XTi to a 20/30/40D is a good move, and that it's better to get better glass than move up to a 5D. I know, like most things in life, the answer is "it depends", however, what if any general guidelines would you give?

What do you consider when deciding if it's time to upgrade your body vs. getting better glass?

With my b-day and christmas coming up I'm trying to figure out what I want to get myself.

I currently own a XTi, 50 1.4, and the 24-105 4L.

Cheers,
Steve

Van Isle · November 12, 2007

It depends on what YOU notice is wrong.

IF you are really noticing that your shots are not sharp and you architectural shots are waaay distorted, and you're doing everything else right, maybe upgrade to better glass.

If you're missing every shot at the sports event because you can only shoot 2 fps, maybe you need a faster camera.

For me, for now and for the foreseeable future my camera will be way better than me, but the glass could be better as I build up a pickier eye.

(plus cameras do have a useful life/shutter span before needing $$$rebuild)

VI

LiquidAir · November 12, 2007

The 50 1.4 and the 24-105 are both excellent lenses, so for you it would't me so much upgrading as buying into a focal length or aperture that you don't already have.

If you are looking to make larger prints, a 5D will be a noticable upgrade for you. It will also change the effective reach of your lenses, which may or may not be an issue for you.

If you are looking for a better shooting experience, a 40D is the best way to go, albeit a 5D is also an improvement on an XTi.

If you wait a few weeks, there will be a 5D II (at likely a considerably higher price) which will likely give you all the benefits of the current 5D and the 40D in one package.

In terms of glass, your choices are wider, longer, or faster. Here are the questions to ask:

Are you willing to change lenses often? There isn't much point in having several lenses if all but one of them collect dust in the bag.

Are you often banging up against the stops of the 24-105 and wishing it could go further? If so, which direction?

Do you often have trouble with motion blur? If so an f/2.8 lens may be the ticket.
Do you often have trouble with motion blur?

eichert12 · November 12, 2007

I'm very happy with the lenses that I have now. I use the 24-105 the most and generally don't feel like the range limits me. I recently shot a couple of my brothers football games and had to do some pretty heavy cropping due to not having enough lens to get in close. I also shoot a good bit indoors, and in general am not a big fan of using flash, so the minimum aperature on the 24-105 "hurts" sometimes. I definitely don't mind switching lenses, however, I have noticed that I've been sticking with the 24-105 a lot more lately due to it's "flexibility".

I posted a couple weeks ago about feeling like my shots weren't as sharp as I expected which I think was due to some things I was doing, but I also had a few people mention that the XTi was "softer" then the 40 and 5D. Have other seen this as well?

A couple of lens that I've heard good things about that I have on my wish list are:

100mm 2.8 macro
135 2L
longer telephoto (maybe 70-200 2.8 L IS, but I need to catch up on some of the dgrin posts on this very topic)

I'm a little scared for the new 5D to come out. I have a serious problem with wanting the latest and greatest (nobody else here has that problem, right?) and I know I'll have a hard time resisting it. I'm thinking the price will be high enough to appropriately scare me off though, which is why I was thinking about the 40D.

Cheers,
Steve

pathfinder · November 12, 2007

The 40D and the 5D are both great cameras.

Which is better for you, depends entirely on you and your needs.

Landscapes and architecture - go with the 5D

Sports and Wildlife - get a 40D, it will be much more useful than the 5D

You are a Wide angle, in your face, shooter - get the 5D

You prefer telephotos, and are a paparazzi (

) - get a 40D.

Both will capture stunning files with smooth, fine low noise images.

For snapshots and portraiture, either will work wonderfully.

Newer bodies are sure to come, but these bodies will be making great images for some lucky folks for quite a while.

LiquidAir · November 12, 2007

I have a 5D and a bunch of lenses, including the 24-105, 50/1.4, 100/2.8 macro, and 135/2L. I don't have any of the 70-200 variants because for the way I work they are too large. I am always a little hesitant to give lens advice because the way I work is a bit uncommon. I use fast primes for people photography and slow zooms for almost everything else. As such I have two completely separate kits depending on what I plan on shooting. What that means is I don't have any of the ever popular f/2.8 zoom line.

Here's a few comments on the lenses on your list:

135/2L: This is a fantastic lens: fast, sharp, reasonably small, and creamy bokeh. It is not my most used lens, but it is the one I enjoy using the most. However, on a 1.6 crop camera it is a different beast. I use it for headshots and candids, but on a 1.6 crop body it would be too long for most of the spaces I work in. If I had a 40D or an XTi, I don't think I would use it nearly as much as I do in the 5D. Of course that is for my shooting style; yours certainly differes.

100/2.8 macro: I just got this lens with the discount. First impressions: wonderfully sharp and it is much more convenient than using extension tubes. However, the focus hunts in low light to the point that I find it annoying. Many people say they use this lens for portraits and I am sure it give great results in well controlled circumstances. However, for the way I work I'll take the quick and reliable focus of either the 85/1.8 or the 135/2 over the 100/2.8 any day.

70-200/2.8L IS: I don't have this lens for a couple reasons. One is that it is big and heavy. The other is that is that particular zoom range doesn't really fit my shooting style. However, the quality is legendary so if it fits your needs I am sure it is great. The tele zoom I own is the 70-300/4-5.6 IS. I don't do a lot of shooting past 135mm, so for my uses it makes sense to have a telephoto that I am willing to throw in my bag just in case I need it. Carting along a 70-200/2.8 is a commitment.

eichert12 · November 13, 2007

Pathfinder: thanks for the breakdown on what to buy given my style, that definitely helps. I think the 40D more suits my needs, given my paparazzi style and all

Given the new 5D is likely to be announced soonish I think I'll wait so I can tease myself to the most extreme level.

LiquidAir: I've heard the most good things about the 135/2L but as you said I think it would be a little too long on my XTi, or the 40D. I actually think the 24-105/4L that I have is the ideal range for my needs which is why I went with it originally. I'm not sure how that would change if I went with a full frame camera. The 100/2.8 was appealing because I'd like to try my hand at Macro photography. The longer telephoto is the least interesting to me, since the only time I wished I had one was when I shot a couple of my brothers football games the last couple weeks. Had I had something longer I would have definitely taken a lot more shots. But given his season is over, and I don't have any plans to shoot any other games I'll likely hold off on anything in this range until I feel a stronger need for it.

Thanks for thoughts, it's much appreciated!

Cheers,
Steve

claudermilk · November 13, 2007

LiquidAir and Pupator have given you a lot of good advice, and I'm going to largely go down the same path.

Look at where your kit is limiting you. Since you already have some good glass, you're past the glass-as-limitation stage. As I do frequently, I'll use myself as an example.

My main kit is a 20D, Tokina 12-24/4, Canon 24-70/2.8L and 70-200/2.8L. I have no issues with glass within my covered range--those lenses were carefully chosen and are here to stay. I have two avenues of upgrade I am looking at right now: longer glass and better body. I am starting to shoot some subjects where I'd like to have 300-500mm reach, so am looking st afew options there. I am also seeing that my 20D is getting long in the tooth and am starting to get tired of the AF limitations, so am looking at scraping up the cash for a 1D Mk II (N) upgrade. So now I simply have to decide what the worst limitation: reach or body performance? And of course factor budget into that.

So...what are your main limitations you are encountering in your kit?

Pupator · November 13, 2007

claudermilk wrote:

LiquidAir and Pupator have given you a lot of good advice, and I'm going to largely go down the same path.

He he,

I didn't know I had given any advice, but I'll always take the credit if it was good!

dablan · November 13, 2007

Good glass never goes out of style. Camera bodies change, features area added, megapixels are doubled, but no matter what, the lenses can always be used. A 6MP, or 12MP, there's nothing like a quality lens.

eichert12 · November 13, 2007

Chris,

Very good question, and of course a very good way to approach the problem. I think the primary limitation that I feel from my body is less than ideal auto focusing, especially when shooting sports/action.

I also shoot in lower light fairly often and haven't been overly pleased with the amount of noise in shots taken with higher ISO's. I'm not sure how much better the 40D/5D is in this regard, anyone care to enlighten me?

Sometimes (albeit pretty rarely) I find the fps on the XTi limiting. The final thing that I'm not real keen on with the XTi is how it feels. My hands are by no means large but the XTi doesn't fit nicely and doesn't feel "right".

Oh and the final, final thing that I've been running against lately is that the metering doesn't seem be as good as I expect it. I take this as partly my fault since I should understand what I'm shooting and adjust appropriately but my laziness prevents me from doing that more often than I'd like

From the lens perspective, the main limitation I think would probably be not having the range to get in close enough for some shots. Although I wouldn't classify it as a limiting factor, as mentioned previously, I would like to try my hand at macro photography which is what has me interested in the 100/2.8 macro.

Cheers,
Steve

eichert12 · November 13, 2007

dablan wrote:

Good glass never goes out of style. Camera bodies change, features area added, megapixels are doubled, but no matter what, the lenses can always be used. A 6MP, or 12MP, there's nothing like a quality lens.

So says the guy with one of the best bodies you can get!

On a serious note, I certainly understand that, but there has to be some point where you choose to get a better body, right? How did you end up with a 1D Mark III? What made you upgrade to that from your previous body?

LiquidAir · November 13, 2007

eichert12 wrote:

Very good question, and of course a very good way to approach the problem. I think the primary limitation that I feel from my body is less than ideal auto focusing, especially when shooting sports/action.

I also shoot in lower light fairly often and haven't been overly pleased with the amount of noise in shots taken with higher ISO's. I'm not sure how much better the 40D/5D is in this regard, anyone care to enlighten me?

Sometimes (albeit pretty rarely) I find the fps on the XTi limiting. The final thing that I'm not real keen on with the XTi is how it feels. My hands are by no means large but the XTi doesn't fit nicely and doesn't feel "right".

Oh and the final, final thing that I've been running against lately is that the metering doesn't seem be as good as I expect it. I take this as partly my fault since I should understand what I'm shooting and adjust appropriately but my laziness prevents me from doing that more often than I'd like

From the lens perspective, the main limitation I think would probably be not having the range to get in close enough for some shots. Although I wouldn't classify it as a limiting factor, as mentioned previously, I would like to try my hand at macro photography which is what has me interested in the 100/2.8 macro.

I played with an XTi a bit and it is no joy to use. I think what you need is a 40D and a 70-200/2.8. The 40D should solve a lot of your AF, speed and handling issues. It will also lower the noise a bit. However, the best answer for low light is a faster lens. The 70-200/2.8 will both give you the extra reach and the extra light you need for shooting sports.

As far as macro goes, I'd suggest the cheap route in the short term and upgrade later. Get a set of Kenko extension tubes and use them with your 24-105. It won't have quite the quality or convenience of the 100/2.8, but IS is actually quite handy when shooting macros. If you do decide to get a 100/2.8, you can use the tubes with it and get even closer that 1:1.

eichert12 · November 13, 2007

LiquidAir wrote:

I played with an XTi a bit and it is no joy to use. I think what you need is a 40D and a 70-200/2.8. The 40D should solve a lot of your AF, speed and handling issues. It will also lower the noise a bit.

I agree

The 70-200/2.8 will both give you the extra reach and the extra light you need for shooting sports.

I've been thinking about renting a lens or two from http://www.borrowlenses.com/ to see how I like them. Anybody used them?

As far as macro goes, I'd suggest the cheap route in the short term and upgrade later.

Thanks for the recommendations, I'll check them out as well!

evoryware · November 13, 2007

I actually love the way my xti feels. My hands are large. 40D felt better and more fun to use.
XTi metering seems great now that I've learned to use it.
My XTi is not soft and the focus is great. I rarely go above ISO 400 anymore unless I have to with my XTi. If I do, it's usually to 800.
I do not like AI Focus on the XTi. In fact, I don't think it's working properly on my body. AI Servo is great. Soon I will send my XTi to Canon for a checkup.

I used the XTi and 40D on two separate occasions. The 40D can run off a bunch more shots much faster. 40D vs XTI @ 1600 ISO I'd take the 40D hands down. Below 1600 I didn't see a difference.

My wishlist 40D, 10-22, 24-70, 70-200 2.8 IS, 100-400. Based on this wishlist, I'd work on lenses first.

xris · November 13, 2007

I Just Know You're Wantin' To Know
Me? I want a new body AND a new camera.

Glass is ALWAYS on the list....

claudermilk · November 14, 2007

Pupator wrote:

He he,

I didn't know I had given any advice, but I'll always take the credit if it was good!

That's what I get for not double-checking. I meant Pathfinder; i had just jumped out of another thread you had made some good posts on, so that was stuck in my head.

@eichert12: Well, it sounds like the body is your main limitation. For macro you can dip your toes in by grabbing a Kenko extension tube set off ebay for cheap. I'm going to do that myself probably early next year.

Joves · November 16, 2007

dablan wrote:

Good glass never goes out of style. Camera bodies change, features area added, megapixels are doubled, but no matter what, the lenses can always be used. A 6MP, or 12MP, there's nothing like a quality lens.

I agree whole heartedly. I will always buy glass before the newest bodies. I shoot with Nikons myself but, it is still the same. If you are wanting to reach out and, touch someone or, something but, your glass is leaving you short get new glass. I shoot wildlife and, have a 80-400 VR for that so, my next purchase is going to be wide angle and, the new 14-24 f/2.8 Nikor. I was going to up-grade to D300 but, I will let the body hang for awhile and, get more glass. Im currently using a D80 and, D50.

Better glass or a new body?

Comments