Upgrade Rebel XT or get some new glass?

Hello and please excuse me if this particular question has been asked many times before, but each

situation is a little different. I am far from pro, and I take mainly outdoor portrait type pics of my kids and

nature photography. I don't ever aspire to be a pro, but I would like to start getting some pictures blown

up big for framing, etc.

 

Currently my setup is a Rebel XT, along with the 10-22mm EF-S and the older 28-135mm that I have had

since I had my old EOS-3.

 

I miss the quality of the EOS-3, but the Rebel XT does take decent pics

 

 

Would I notice more of a difference with the 40D with the slightly higher resolution and 14bit processing

or getting a new "L" lens or something in that quality. Getting a tele lens like the 70-200 would be in the

budget, but I can't do that AND get a new 40D.

 

I have never printed very enlarged pictures over 14x20, but it does interest me....

 

So,

 

Option #1-keep with the current setup and get a nice new L tele

Option #2-sell my Rebel XT (I have someone who would pay $400) and get a 40D, and don't get a new

lens for another year or so.

 

Thanks all for any suggestions!

Everybody has an opinion, and here is mine. Go for the L glass. I have a fairly new XTi and began with a good Tamron lens and the Canon 70-300 IS 4.5/5.6 zoom, which worked very well and I was happy...until I did a lens test with my 70-300 zoom and the 70-200 L f/4 ...and could see the better quality in the L. I quickly sold my zoom and got the L. I also have sold my Tamron and bought the 17-40 L f/4 Canon. Best thing is both of these L's are far less priced than the other faster or fixed L's .

If you're looking for a lot more megapixels, then upping the body is justified, but the glass makes the most difference, in my opinion.

Ok sounds like you have a little over $1,000 to spend. You are bouncing around a bit between new body, replace the 28-135 and getting a 70-200.

 

The first thing I would do is take your buddy up on the $400 for the XT. You can add $150 more and get the XTi for $550 at B&H. Still I don't think upgrading the sensor is going to be a huge difference. But 10mp is better than 8. BTW I shoot both a 30D 8mp and a Xti 10 mp. Both have very good low light/high ISO performance. Pictures form these two camera's are indistinquishable. I can't say about the XT.

 

Are you shooting in low light? If so, the 40D may makes sense because one of it's selling points is much improved performance at higher ISO's.

 

If you're not shooting in low light a lot, then upgrading the lens will probably brind you more bang for the buck. Your 28-105 is decent. But upgrading to say a 24-105F4LIS would give you a noticable image quality boost. That's about $1000.

 

Another alternative would be to try to sell both lenses (if you can live without the 10-17 range) and get a 17-55 F2.8IS $950 and a 70-200F4L $550. This would probably fall into your budget if you got a decent price for the old lenses. If there's more money get the 70-200 with IS or the 2.8.

 

You can look up lens performance test data on photozone.de.

The right lens is nearly always the answer. If you have shooting to do that needs a 70-200 then you'll be far ahead to get that lens and wait on a new body. The 40D images are better, but not THAT much better. I doubt you will blow up many shots to larger than 16x20 but you may get dozens of better images with the new zoom lens. That lens will hold you in good stead in a year or two when you finally upgrade to the 50E :). A good camera with great lenses is more valuable than a great camera with mediocre lenses.

I agree with Terry. I doubt that you would see much difference in picture quality by switching to a 40D, but better lenses will produce sharper pictures.

 

There are other reasons to upgrade to the 40D, more comfortable grip, especially with larger lenses, better autofocus. Also lenses are a better investment. They don't come and go (like cameras) and maintain their value.

If you mostly shoot with the 10-22, you have a fine lens in that range and upgrading your

camera _might_ make a small difference in maximum image quality. You aren't likely to

see a "'night and day" difference in image quality though by moving from the 8MP XT to

the 10MP 40D.

 

If you feel that a new L telephoto is important to your photography, that might make a

more immediate and visible change in your photography.

 

(And you could still save for a new body in a year or two when one arrives that is even

more or an image quality improvement over the current one, or when you might decide to

move to FF.)

 

Dan

Hey Staben

 

I have both the XT and 40D and if I were you I'd stick with the XT and get better glass.

 

I truly doubt you would notice much difference between the 8mp and 10mp bodies and although the 40D has more features and what others say about it for low light and faster AF are true BUT the XT is still a good camera and with quality lenses you will be quite happy.

 

As said already, if it is possible to upgrade to the XTi by selling the XT for $400 and paying $150 more then that is a great option also and then getting a great quality lens for your photos.

 

I primarily use the 17-55mm 2.8IS and 70-200 2.8IS and have used them both on the XT and 40D and don't see much of a difference at all with the IQ (image quality) so I would go for a better lens before a new body.

 

For outdoor portraits and nature shots I'm not sure which 70-200 you were looking at but if I knew I was only doing it for family and fun and not going pro then I would get the 70-200mm f/4IS if possible. If I didn't need the faster 2.8 lenses I would have bought this one over the 2.8IS. You will love it for your purposes.

 

All the best.

"Would I notice more of a difference with the 40D ... or getting a new "L" lens... I take mainly outdoor portrait type pics of my kids and nature photography."

 

Neither. The incremental resolution increase going to the 40D is not high enough really to be noticeable. As for an L zoom, the price premium is mostly not about increased optical quality.

 

The best bang for the buck is EF primes. In general, you will see better sharpness and contrast than the lenses you're using now. Importantly, the primes are all optically fast so that you can explore images with shallow DOF.

 

Start with the 50mm f1.8 for $80. If you like the resulting images, try the 85mm f1.8 next, and then the 35mm f2.

I assume you have around $1300 (price of 40D). If I were you I'd ebay the 28-135, hopefully I'll bring in around $300-350. Then I put in another $700 for the 70-200 f/4L IS. I'm left with about $600. I think I'm gonna save that $600 for the future. Just get better glass, they're there to stay.

 

I also like Dan and Jay's opinions.

Don't buy a new DSLR ever, unless you feel you simply MUST do so. Even then, you'll be upgrading DSLR more than you really need to, at least if you are like most of us. Having said that, the Rebel XTi has some advantages over the XT, and if you can upgrade for a net of about $150 that might be worth doing.

 

If you're into nature photography, I'd look seriously at the Canon 100-400L. Sigma 50-500 would be a good substitute, but it is even heavier, and without IS it is somewhere between difficult and impossible to shoot handheld in anything other than blazing bright light.

i just got the 17-55 (2.8 IS) EFS. this is an L quality lens. it compliments the 10-22 very nicely. like you, i've been using the 28-135. this is a good lens but i feel it's much better on a FF body than on an XT.

 

the 17-55 produces as beautiful an image as you can get. many reviewers have said that this lens has L quality (a few say it surpasses L lenses like the 28-70). i agree. i believe this is the best mid-range zoom made.

 

i use the 17-55 on a 40d, but i own an XTi. while there is a substantial difference in IQ between the XTi and the 40d, it is nonetheless a subtle difference. that is...substantial but subtle. if you did not already have the XT i would recommend laying out the extra $500 or so and getting a 40d. but, you have an XT, so i'm suggesting getting some L glass. if you want the 70-200 go for it. strongly recommend the 17-55 EFS though. this focal range covers most day to day shooting and the imagery is stunning. i have no doubt you'll be able to see the difference between the 28-135 and the 17-55 using the XT.

 

here's an image i shot last night in Seattle with the 17-55. it's not a traditional shot (apologies but i had had the lens for a total of 25 minutes at the time i made this shot) but you can still see the quality of the color and get an idea of the sharpness this lens provides.

 

wishing you the best with your new purchase

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/6722898&size=lg

would add that upgrading the XT to an XTi makes little sense. would go to the 40d and skip the Rebel altogether

If you need a longer lens than your 28-135, that's what you should get-- unless you're geniunely unhappy with your Rebel XT.

 

I have a Rebel XT with a 28-135 but a Tokina 12-24 instead of your Canon 10-22. I am happy with the image quality I get for 11x14 and 12x18 prints (the largest I can make myself). The extra megapixels in a 40D or XTi don't really amount to much in terms of image quality (but if I were buying my first DSLR today I'd certainly spend the few extra bucks for the XTi over the still-available XT). The 40D is appealing for other reasons, particularly the superior ergonomics and the improved highlight detail. But none of those are enough to convince me to consider replacing my perfectly adequate XT.

 

Digital cameras are continually changing and improving, and you'll go absolutely nuts if you try to keep up with it. If you have an 8 megapixel camera, going to 10 megapixels isn't going to give you much improvement (and remember, Canon still sells the XT so it's not really "obsolete"). Unless there's a compelling major breakthrough in image quality or usabilty, there's no reason to replace a two-year-old camera. Concentrate on learning to use your XT better and save your money.

Wow you guys are awesome! Sure gave me a lot to think about. Here's what I'm thinking:

1) Keep the XT and focus on getting to be a better photographer instead of worrying about

megapixels and processing for now. Use it until for another 18mo or so when the 50D is

out, or maybe a FF camera by then.

2) Get the 70-200 f4L IS. I seem to use the longer end of my 28-135 so I would rather

upgrade on the tele end since I don't have anything there anyway. I have heard that the 17-

55 2.8 is a great lens but I hate to buy another EF-S lens and end up getting a FF camera in

the future.

Alan Green wrote: "would add that upgrading the XT to an XTi makes little sense. would go to the 40d and skip the Rebel

altogether"

 

I agree pretty much completely with the first point. The XTi is a fine camera, but any image quality improvement is likely to

be small compared to the XT.

 

I do not necessarily agree with the second point. To the extent that the OP's major concern is "image quality," I wouldn't

recommend going to a 40D - any image quality improvement over the XT will be pretty similar if not downright identical

with either the 400D/XTi or the 40D.

 

A need for certain other specific features on the 40D (and the OP may or may not have these needs) might lead to a

different answer.

j

 

you're all over the place. you say that an upgrade to a 40d would put a strain on your budget (and would mean you couldn't buy a new lens for a while), but you're considering an upgrade to a ff body? ff bodies cost 3 to 7 times what a 40d costs.

 

an upgrade to a ff body must be more than a couple years away. maybe you should get good glass now and worry about a body upgrade later. your XT is a fine camera.

Alan, I'm actually not considering a FF body anytime soon with how much they cost. I had

said that maybe in 18mo the "50D" if there is such a thing or maybe FF camera by then,

because who knows what they will cost at that time (maybe the 50D will be FF!). If a FF

camera stays in the 3k range it will be a few years away... I really was in effect stating an

agreement with the seemingly universal recommendation to stick with what I have for now

and get some nice glass. And, work on my photography!

j

 

the 50d should be quite a machine

 

i'm betting that, within a few years, small sensor cameras will have improved to the point where they are standard equipment for everything except, say, advertising and modeling and the like. ff bodies will be considered in the same way medium-format cameras were 20 years ago

For nature and portraiture I suggest a macro lens. I shoot similar subjects, and my Tamron 90/2.8 macro is one of my most used and loved lenses. Canon 100/2.8 macro would also be a very good choice.

I'm wrestling with the same question.

 

In your case I also suggest trying a prime lens or two. For outdoor portraits of kids, especially in low light, my 85f1.8 is AWESOME. I bought a 60f2.8 macro for indoor portraits and it has surprised me in that it is my most frequently used lens now. I have these plus the 10-22 and 70-300IS. The primes simply take stunning photos. While I don't have the inexpensive 50 prime everyone recommends, you might start there.

 

I am one of the minority who prefer the smaller size of the Rebels. In your case this sounds advantageous as well. The 40D is much larger and heavier.

 

Me? I made the mistake of letting someone allow me to fondle a new 40D, and the screen, improved view finder, and many other nice things are proving too seductive to pass up. I certainly don't need 6.5 frames/second, but it is cool.