new lens vs new camera

<p>Hello, Im somewhat of a novice in the world of photograghy. The more reading I am doing the more I realize not only do i need better lenses but I also need a better camera if im going to get the shots I am looking for. I currently have the Rebel xt(out dated) and a canon 28-90mm ef 4-5.6 and a canon 90-300mm 4.6-5.6. My question is an a limited budget(under a 1000) do I buy a nicer camera(looking at 50d) and use the old lens for a while or do I buy a good lens then get the camera down the road?</p>

<p>What do you photograph, and under what sort of lighting conditions?</p>

<p>used 40D with a Tamron 17-50 2.8 would fit in your budget but I would suggest the new t2i with the new kit lens.</p>

"I currently have the Rebel xt(out dated) and a canon 28-90mm ef 4-5.6 and a canon 90-300mm 4.6-5.6. "

======================================================================

 

The Tamron 17-50 2.8 is a good sharp lens and puts you into semi/pro territory. These days I don't consider anthing over F4. This is a habit I picked up back from the film days when I had to stop shooting at dusk or use flash, because the lens could not handle it.

<p>An XT is "old" in digital age, but still quite capable. More pixels is usually better, but it's not the pixels nor the camera OR lens that makes the picture. I have seen absolutely stunning landscapes done on an XT with the old 18-55mm kit lens.<br /> Your lenses (if they are the ones I'm thinking of) are also older and not the top of the line, but like your camera, they are plenty capable. At present, you have no real wide angle, if these are the only lenses. The lenses and the camera body are probably worth less on eBay than they are in use to you. It's really nice to have two camera bodies, so you don't have to mess with lens changes and such in the field so much.</p>

<p>A used 40D is indeed perhaps the very best buy in used Canon cameras right now. Whatever, it is probably time to upgrade something. If I were you, I might think very seriously about getting the IS version of the 18-55mm lens. It looks cheap, is cheap, and does very well. Not more than $200 for the lens, and depending on what you were planing to spend, you could pick up one of the less expensive, but newer, APS-C cameras. There are very attractive bundles of the 18-55 IS with the various Rebel cameras. Check at Adorama or B&H--anybody much cheaper is suspect. Both also sell used older cameras as well.</p>

<p>For low light, there are some relatively inexpensive "plastic" prime lenses that can be optically very good indeed without costing much.</p>

<p>I mostly shoot outdoor, nature pictures.</p>

<p>For well under $1000 then you could get three fast primes and make a world of difference that a new camera body will not. I suggest looking at 28mm 50mm and 100mm</p>

<p>How big are you planning on printing?</p>

<p>I vote for lenses over body. The 50D has already sort of been replaced by the 7D, so in a year or two you'll be looking to upgrade your body again anyways to the latest and greatest. But lenses from 10 years ago that were of pro build and quality are still viable lenses. And I'd take wide aperture lenses over smaller aperture lens with IS any day, however IS lenses do have their place.</p>

<p>Maybe a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 for starters. You didn't list anything that wide and it's always nice to add to your focal lengths when building onto your starter kit. You'd be amazed at the low light capabilities of a fast lens.</p>

<p>absolutely recommend a lens. try a (canon) prime on your xt. you'll be surprised what that combo can produce.<br>

if you really want a zoom that's fine, but you can get 2 or 3 good primes for the same money. try a 28 or 35, a 50 f 1.8, and a 85 or 100.<br>

as for the xt being 'out of date' check out juza's landscapes. when he was starting out he used a 350d and other similar rebel-type bodies with kit or consumer zooms:<br>

http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/juza_portfolio.htm#001881</p>

 

<p>Right now im printing as big as 8.5by11 on my photo printer. This may be a dream but I would like to show or even sell some of my work.</p>

<p>Jason, I am not sure that you need to upgrade equipment at this point. We can only go by the images available to us and those would make me believe you are pretty new to this. The biggest mistake made early is getting equipment instead of learning how to use what you have. This generally ends up with having a lot of equipment that makes no sense when you do advance your creative abilities and learn how you shoot and what you need to do it at the highest level.</p>

<p>You will only get advice here as to what works for others. You need to discover what is best for you and that will clarify itself with time. Then you will be asking opinion about the quality of choices and not what choices to make.</p>

<p>So, save your money for now or use it to take high level creative classes or workshops. Go to the library and devour as many fine art photographer monographs as you can. Also read the words, not just look at the pictures. Work on your skills and even consider carrying just your shorter lens. Reduce your choices, maybe even just shooting at one focal length and learn to see with going out and shooting as often as you can. It is hard work that makes us better, not the equipment.</p>

<p>Good luck.</p>

 

<p>Thanks guys, you have all been very helpfull. Im leaning towards lenses at this point.</p>

 

<p>Looking at your current (5) pictures I'd say that foremost comes practicing post processing. (Or even just setting a vivid custom picture style.)</p>

<p>After that I'd get one good lens. Either an affordable prime (28/2.8 , 35/2 or 50/1.8) or a quality zoom (Tamron 17-50, Canon 15-85 etc etc etc).</p>

<p>After that I'd take a long while to get used to that lens and practicing post processing before thinking on changing something else. And whether that something else is a body or a lens will depend on what is holding you back the most after that period.</p>

<p>Have fun and good luck, Matthijs.</p>

<p>Post scriptum: I played with two of your critique submissions. Hope you like the results.</p>

<p>@zyg zyg: some pictures lower there's shots with a 350D (XT) and supertele's that are jaw dropping gorgeous. You're right, the XT should be able to deliver great looking pictures.</p>

<p>Another option to consider would be to sell all the gear you have, and start anew with a body+lens package. There's significant savings built into this. You should be able to get the T1i with 18-55 IS and 55-250 IS within your budget. This would be a serious upgrade on the optics side, plus you get a body with improved AF, video, live-view, big LCD, the works.</p>

<p>For outdoor nature, I'd make my next purchase a 70-200mm f/4L IS. Buy used if you have to for your budget. Don't buy less performance. After the lens, when money has replenished, think about moving up to a better camera body. I think the ultimate pro-sumer camera for wildlife is the 7D. If you'll never be able to afford that, then look to the 40D or 50D, lightly used.</p>

<p>An interim step after the lens might be a 1.4TC (teleconverter). Your body is pretty capable. To step up for nature photography, you'll need to look for good high-ISO performance and high shutter burst rate, which gets you looking at a 7D. Maybe a year from now you'll be able to buy a used 7D for $1000. If you've already got a great lens, then all you'll need is the body. Right now, you need more lens AND more body, but I'd suggest starting with the lens.</p>

<p>Don't worry about the LCD. Look through the viewfinder for nature shots, or you'll miss most of them.</p>

<p>Thank you Matthijs, your pointers are greatly appretiated. The pictures look way better. I have alot to learn. And again, thanks to everyone who are giving there opinion.</p>

<p>One thing not mentioned here was whether you had a tripod or not. This can really help you be able to get the best images from your equipment, especially in light of what you shoot. It also slows you down and makes you think more than pulling a camera up and shooting.</p>

<p>Before I shot digital 35mm, I had a Rebel XT that I used as a scouting and knock around camera. Two galleries on my website are all shot with that camera and the kit lens 17-85. (Texas2Step and Amtrak-OnTheRoad). I thought the camera was ok, but not reliable as to focusing, which meant I would usually shoot a few shots of anything I cared about. I have made 16x20 prints from the camera that are very fine.</p>

<p>If you still feel the need to upgrade i would suggest a lens. You can either replace your most used lens with a better one (for example the 28-90 being replaced with a fast 17-55 / 17-50 (e.g Canon 17-55 F2.8 but remember it will not work on full frame if you ever upgrade to this). Or if you want to try something new perhaps a wide angle (e.g. Canon 10-22 or Tokina 11-16) or a Macro lens. The canon 15-85 is another consideration. As to bodies i would decide what you really need before you upgrade - more pixels, bigger / better viewfinder, better screen, live view, faster AF, faster frame rate, High ISO performance. once you know what you want (or are missing) this will tell you what to do. Like some others I grew up in the film era so inadequate viewfinders and slow lenses drive me crazy (although I have come to love my 70-200 f4 IS and use it more than my 70-200 f2.8)</p>

<p>the canon 40d has been mentioned.. i own one, it is a fantastic piece of equipment because it is a designed to be a camera not something else (ie not like the olympus 620 which has something you can do called "pop art" filters... that is a something you put on a kids toy not a camera)... and i have been waiting for the price to drop on the rebel xsi now as it will since the t2i has come out, i'd like to pick one up as a second body..... the xsi is in the same vein as the 40d, it is a camera, has the features a camera should have, ie depth of field preview, spot meter, etc, and reports on it are the sensor is superb.... the 40d is very heavy, i do walk up to 8 km thru the forest by my home with it in a hip bag but you do KNOW you are carrying it, which is one reason i want an xsi..... i don't like the way the xsi sits in my hand but so what, i'll take one and glue foam rubber all over the grip to make it fit my hand...... but years and years ago, a phogotgrapher who went on to become world renowned, took the first photo he had published in national geographic, on a kodak instamatic camera.. a film camera which shot at f8 125, period.... the camera is like any tool, good ones are nice to own, but the most important tool you own is your own vision and understanding of lighting, because the camera only takes photos of what you aim it at....</p>

<p>incidentally, altho i already did respond and "try" to make the point that it is you, not the equipment, which counts, i also did talk about the 40d and the xsi.... so i'll say it a bit differently... even tho i am looking to buy an xsi to have as a back-pack camera and they are coming down in price, if someone walked up and handed me your used xt as a freebie and asked if it would do what i want, my answer would be you bet your freebie life it would, i'd gladly have one in my bag.....</p>

<p>i'm wondering, if you are not a pro who needs to satisfy clients, why you are shooting digital. if you sell your camera, and add the $1000 you already have, you are going to buy a beautiful film camera with a few fast primes, and a whole heap of film...........and you'll be shooting 'full frame'. don't worry, you can still scan your film and muck about in photoshop if you really want.</p>

<p>In the days that I was looking for a digital point and shoot, I decided on a Powershot G2 ($800 at that time), as I came across this gallery by Pekka Sarinen, using his G1:(<a href="http://photography-on-the.net/gallery/list.php?exhibition=2&u=&ee_lang=eng"> Here </a>). I thought I should be able to make better pictures than him with my G2.. Yeah right. He moved on to better cameras, and his pictures continue to be good. I have also used better cameras, and my pictures continue to be mediocre.<br>

That said, I would definitely look for a better lens than what the OP mentioned. My revelation was when I moved from a Tamron super zoom (28-200) to a Canon 28-105 zoom and a Canon 50mm 1.4 on an EOS 50 (used mostly slides). The difference in sharpness and contrast we evident, and so was the lack of difference in artistic quality!.<br>

Good Luck, and enjoy your shooting.</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=2257221">Ty Mickan</a> <a href="http://www.photo.net/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub4.gif" alt="" /></a>, Mar 11, 2010; 04:24 a.m.<br>

i'm wondering, if you are not a pro who needs to satisfy clients, why you are shooting digital. if you sell your camera, and add the $1000 you already have, you are going to buy a beautiful film camera with a few fast primes, and a whole heap of film...........and you'll be shooting 'full frame'. don't worry, you can still scan your film and muck about in photoshop if you really want.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Do you actually believe that digital is only an advantage for pros with clients? This sounds like a statement from 10 years ago. </p>