Advice

My recommendation is, unless you have a real valid NEED or use for the additional capabilities of the new camera, don't upgrade. Examples:

1 - After the film F2, I held off upgrading for decades (past the F3, F4 and F5), until the digital D70.

2 - I got the D70S, even though I had a D70. Because the D70S had a WIRED remote, which the D70 did not have. The wire remote was so much better for doing tripod work than the IR remote, that to me it was worth buying the same camera, just with the wired remote capability.

3 - I got a D7200 because my 11 year old D70S died. If the D70S had not died, I would be still using it. Yes it is obsolete, but it does everything that I want. I selected the D7200 figuring that I would be using it for the next 10+ years. IOW a long term camera.

 

 

As was said, lenses are LONG term gear. I have and use my 30+ year old film era lenses on my DLSR. They work for the purpose that I want, so I see no need to spend extra money to simply upgrade to current gear, when I get no practical functional gain. During that time I went from film Nikkormat FTn, to Nikon F2 (which I kept and used for decades), then went to digital D70 to D7200. Yes, it is tempting to upgrade, but when I look at my gear, I ask why, what gain to I get? The answer is usually little. The IS/VR lenses however do bring a significant capability to the new lenses, especially as I get older.

 

As for Canon vs. Nikon.

• Flip a coin.
   
  
• They are both GOOD cameras.
   
  
• It is the same marketing battle that has been going on since at least the 1970s.
   
  
• I went the Nikon line, to be able to swap gear with friends, who had Nikon and Nikkormat.
   
  
• If one camera has a specific feature or lens that you NEED, then that one factor may drive the selection.
  
  • But wait a while and the other brand may bring out a similar camera or lens. It goes back and forth between them.
    

  [*]Service and support is an important factor, primarily for the pros.

  [*]In the case of my Nikon lenses, I can use most of my Nikon film camera lenses on my D70 and D7200. That saves me money because I don't have to buy a full kit of lenses for the DSLR. And for some uses, the old manual lenses works just fine for me on the DSLR.

   

  [*]In my case, I've been shooting Nikon since the 1970s, and felt no need or desire to change brands.

My recommendation is, unless you have a real valid NEED or use for the additional capabilities of the new camera, don't upgrade. Examples:

1 - After the film F2, I held off upgrading for decades (past the F3, F4 and F5), until the digital D70.

2 - I got the D70S, even though I had a D70. Because the D70S had a WIRED remote, which the D70 did not have. The wire remote was so much better for doing tripod work than the IR remote, that to me it was worth buying the same camera, just with the wired remote capability.

3 - I got a D7200 because my 11 year old D70S died. If the D70S had not died, I would be still using it. Yes it is obsolete, but it does everything that I want. I selected the D7200 figuring that I would be using it for the next 10+ years. IOW a long term camera.

 

 

As was said, lenses are LONG term gear. I have and use my 30+ year old film era lenses on my DLSR. They work for the purpose that I want, so I see no need to spend extra money to simply upgrade to current gear, when I get no practical functional gain. During that time I went from film Nikkormat FTn, to Nikon F2 (which I kept and used for decades), then went to digital D70 to D7200. Yes, it is tempting to upgrade, but when I look at my gear, I ask why, what gain to I get? The answer is usually little. The IS/VR lenses however do bring a significant capability to the new lenses, especially as I get older.

 

As for Canon vs. Nikon.

• Flip a coin.
   
  
• They are both GOOD cameras.
   
  
• It is the same marketing battle that has been going on since at least the 1970s.
   
  
• I went the Nikon line, to be able to swap gear with friends, who had Nikon and Nikkormat.
   
  
• If one camera has a specific feature or lens that you NEED, then that one factor may drive the selection.
  
  • But wait a while and the other brand may bring out a similar camera or lens. It goes back and forth between them.
    

  [*]Service and support is an important factor, primarily for the pros.

  [*]In the case of my Nikon lenses, I can use most of my Nikon film camera lenses on my D70 and D7200. That saves me money because I don't have to buy a full kit of lenses for the DSLR. And for some uses, the old manual lenses works just fine for me on the DSLR.

   

  [*]In my case, I've been shooting Nikon since the 1970s, and felt no need or desire to change brands.

Gary,

Thanks a lot for your input. Very informative. Everyone that has commented on here has given me a lot to think about and I appreciate it.

You can't go wrong with any camera. Pictures are taken between you ears and today are produced on the screen. Your computer and software has as much, if not more, to do with the quality of the image (when coupled to your imagination) as does the camera. I've never met a photographer who was made a better photographer by a camera.

John,

I have to agree with you on that although I'm not the biggest fan of over production on the pc especially when the original image ends up looking more like a painting than an actual photographic image. I do admire the work that can be accomplished that way, it's just not my personal preference. I do get your message though and definitely appreciate you taking the time to post.

Ron, I agree about over production, but at times that is a transformation of a photograph to a more generic digital image -- that boundary is very blurred with current capabilities. I have the pleasure of working with Topaz Labs on their plug-ins and have found them incredibly liberating. My vision of the possibility with a "photograph" has changed dramatically over the last several years with the incredible low light capability of new sensors and the ability to software to work with images.

John, Thanks for expounding on that. It's all interesting.

I also have an XSi and have a similar collection of lenses. The newer versions of the Rebel seem like a big step up with features that would make a difference for what you want to do. Improved autofocus and exposure metering plus a higher frame rate would help with the action shots. Higher ISO would help too. I often find myself at 1600 trying to keep the shutter speed high enough with the telephoto lens and I'm willing to trade some noise for sharpness. The flip out screen with improved live view focusing could come in handy for macro. Finally, more megapixels would be welcome.

Andrew,

Thanks for commenting. Well you certainly have tapped on most of my frustration concerning getting good action shots. I'm enjoying all the feedback I'm getting on this and it's nice to get some from someone with similiar equipment also. Thanks again.

Mastering your RAW converter seems essential to make images from an older camera pop and shine.

Since you mentioned action shots maybe read up the Nikon D500 reviews. - It seems the current top end crop DSLR for action. I have no clue what the closest rival by Canon might be. In doubt just read the "AF" section of dpreview reviews.

Hey fellow site members,

I'm pretty much an amateur wanting to upgrade some things. I currently only have a Rebel XSI and a Canon 50mm, 55-250mm,and 24mm lens. My main question is should I upgrade to a better camera body as say a 6D, 7D, 80D, or even a 7D Mark ll or instead invest in better lenses? Also what usually determines Canon or Nikon? I appreciate any advice available. Thanks, Ron.

Answer the last question first. Canon or Nikon? The choice is usually what lenses you have invested in already. They are both great as has been said.<br><br>

Answer the first questions. Camera bodies or lenses. Is your current camera body limiting you in any way? Do you want higher resolution or higher ended features? Is there something in a higher end camera that you would really like to have. If so, maybe you are ready to upgrade. I went from a Rebel XT to a 40D to a 7D to a 6D to a 5D Mark IV between 2005 and 2017. I still have all those bodies with the exception of the Rebel XT which I traded in on an upgrade.<br><br>

Which body to choose if you upgrade. Depends on what you like to shoot? If you are really into wildlife photography the 80D, 7D or 7D Mark II would be good choices. The 7D and 7D Mark II will have more pro features with the 7D Mark II having more improved low light low noise and resolution over the original 7D, but the original 7D is pretty good.<br><br>

The 7D MK I or II are more of the pro camera of the crop sensor camera class, similar to the 5D series features but a crop sensor camera. Even though these are crop sensor cameras they will give you more pixels across the 1.4 crop area of the lens than you will get from that same area of glass compared to even the new 5D Mark IV. What this means is you will get more resolution, more pixels or detail across that crop section of the lens using the same lens. It does not get you closer to the subject but will render more detail for the area of the lens that it does cover. This is great for birding.or wildlife. You can still do landscape and portrait work, the camera is just not going to give you as wide of a shot as you would get with the full frame cameras using the same lens.<br><br>

The crop sensor camera can use both lenses for full frame and crop sensor cameras. Going with the 6D or 5D series you are into the full frame sensors, you can only use lenses for full frame cameras. You get more area covered in your frame, wider and taller.<br><br>

These cameras are great for portraits, landscapes, group shots, street photography and they still work well for wildlife. Everything is just wider shot with a full frame camera. The 6D is entry level into the full frame group, so it will not have all the pro features of a 5D MK II, but the 6D will have the same 9 focal points and better low light noise than the 5D MK II. Personally, I think the 6D is a better camera than the 5D MK II as far as image quality and low light high ISO noise. the 6D will have less focal points than the 7D and 7D MK II so it does not have all the pro features of a 7D. The 6D is entry level into the full frame cameras. The 5D MK III would be a step up over the 6D as far as features and resolution, a jump in focal points and focus system and maybe barely noticeable lower performance in low light noise compared to a 6D, but it will not be enough to notice. The 5D Mark III will have a nice bump in pro features that will make it worth going to, but the 6D has cool stuff like built in WiFi control and GPS that the 5D MK III does not have, though these features when enabled drain the 6D battery quicker, but the are fun to play with so get extra batteries. Going to a 5D Mark IV costs a lot, but it is the best camera I have ever owned.<br><br>

There is also the 5Ds, 50 MP resolution so if you are a fan of detail, 50 MP is awesome high res. Crop those photos to your hearts content and still retain detail. But this is an expensive camera also. There are trade-offs too, it does not have as high of ISO, but with that resolution, what noise you will get will vanish if the photo is reduced and if you have good lighting and exposure, it should not be a problem.<br><br>

So let's say you decide to not go with a new body and are considering lenses. Lenses are a good choice, they will expand your arsenal of glass, you may want to look at a wide angle like a APS-C lens like aTokina 11-16mm for landscape or a nice zoom like a Sigma 150-600mm for wildlife or anything you might desire that will allow you.expand your photography in the direction you choose. Lenses are always a good choice but keep in mind if you buy lenses for APS-C bodies and you upgrade to a full frame body those APS-C lenses will not work on full frame bodies. So if you think you may eventually move to a full frame body eventually, buy lenses that will work on full frame cameras.<br><br>

You will have to decide what you want more, upgrade the camera body or new lenses. New lenses are fun, but so is a camera loaded with features and improvements in low light high ISO low noise, more focal points, better focusing, higher resolution. What do you want more? Either way, you get to upgrade your tools. But remember, a new camera body will not make you a better photographer, it will just be a different tool. That is all these are tools for photography. So upgrade if you really want to.<br><br>

Andrew,

Thanks for commenting. Well you certainly have tapped on most of my frustration concerning getting good action shots. .

What kind of problems are you having with action shots?

- What action/sport?

- What specific shots?

I ask this because I shot action with a full manual camera and had no problem; football, soccer, basketball, volleyball, track, baseball, etc.

Maybe you are relying too much on the camera and less on your own skills.

I have been seriously considering is the Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM.

The older version is one of the oldest of the EOS lenses in design. It is somewhat fragile in that you MUST turn off AF before manually focusing.

The newer one (the IS version) is another kettle of fish, but It is much better than the old one, but costs a lot more ( see http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/847-canon35f2isff?start=2 )

I have an XSi. It is my work horse camera and I love it. It is very competent for macro photography. You can use extension tubes, as mentioned above, or get a dedicated macro lens which will also serve as a fast prime. If you learn to shoot macro with live view, you'll find you can get excellent results with the XSi. With regard to wildlife, this camera has good things going for it. Successful wildlife photography (any genre) is based in good technique and learned skills. You can learn skills for macro or wildlife/nature with the XSi. 4fps isn't fast, but with proper camera settings and a decent lens, you can use that frame rate to build skills and practice technique for birds in flight. Geese and seagulls are perfect subjects for this. (I'm assuming that birds are included in wild life.)

The XSi is just terrible at high ISO (400 works fine), and the tilt screen of more modern models would be a pleasant feature with macro and live view shooting. Aside from those shortcomings, it's a solid, good camera. My advice is work with it to build skills. Rent lenses to explore your interest in wild life. Then, think carefully and critically about what you want from a camera before you get another body. Cameras are tools. Understand what job you want it to do, then get the right tool for that job. Keep the XSi till it dies.

<br><br>

 

 

Answer the last question first. Canon or Nikon? The choice is usually what lenses you have invested in already. They are both great as has been said.<br><br>

 

 

Answer the first questions. Camera bodies or lenses. Is your current camera body limiting you in any way? Do you want higher resolution or higher ended features? Is there something in a higher end camera that you would really like to have. If so, maybe you are ready to upgrade. I went from a Rebel XT to a 40D to a 7D to a 6D to a 5D Mark IV between 2005 and 2017. I still have all those bodies with the exception of the Rebel XT which I traded in on an upgrade.<br><br>

 

 

Which body to choose if you upgrade. Depends on what you like to shoot? If you are really into wildlife photography the 80D, 7D or 7D Mark II would be good choices. The 7D and 7D Mark II will have more pro features with the 7D Mark II having more improved low light low noise and resolution over the original 7D, but the original 7D is pretty good.<br><br>

 

 

The 7D MK I or II are more of the pro camera of the crop sensor camera class, similar to the 5D series features but a crop sensor camera. Even though these are crop sensor cameras they will give you more pixels across the 1.4 crop area of the lens than you will get from that same area of glass compared to even the new 5D Mark IV. What this means is you will get more resolution, more pixels or detail across that crop section of the lens using the same lens. It does not get you closer to the subject but will render more detail for the area of the lens that it does cover. This is great for birding.or wildlife. You can still do landscape and portrait work, the camera is just not going to give you as wide of a shot as you would get with the full frame cameras using the same lens.<br><br>

 

 

The crop sensor camera can use both lenses for full frame and crop sensor cameras. Going with the 6D or 5D series you are into the full frame sensors, you can only use lenses for full frame cameras. You get more area covered in your frame, wider and taller.<br><br>

 

 

These cameras are great for portraits, landscapes, group shots, street photography and they still work well for wildlife. Everything is just wider shot with a full frame camera. The 6D is entry level into the full frame group, so it will not have all the pro features of a 5D MK II, but the 6D will have the same 9 focal points and better low light noise than the 5D MK II. Personally, I think the 6D is a better camera than the 5D MK II as far as image quality and low light high ISO noise. the 6D will have less focal points than the 7D and 7D MK II so it does not have all the pro features of a 7D. The 6D is entry level into the full frame cameras. The 5D MK III would be a step up over the 6D as far as features and resolution, a jump in focal points and focus system and maybe barely noticeable lower performance in low light noise compared to a 6D, but it will not be enough to notice. The 5D Mark III will have a nice bump in pro features that will make it worth going to, but the 6D has cool stuff like built in WiFi control and GPS that the 5D MK III does not have, though these features when enabled drain the 6D battery quicker, but the are fun to play with so get extra batteries. Going to a 5D Mark IV costs a lot, but it is the best camera I have ever owned.<br><br>

 

 

There is also the 5Ds, 50 MP resolution so if you are a fan of detail, 50 MP is awesome high res. Crop those photos to your hearts content and still retain detail. But this is an expensive camera also. There are trade-offs too, it does not have as high of ISO, but with that resolution, what noise you will get will vanish if the photo is reduced and if you have good lighting and exposure, it should not be a problem.<br><br>

 

 

So let's say you decide to not go with a new body and are considering lenses. Lenses are a good choice, they will expand your arsenal of glass, you may want to look at a wide angle like a APS-C lens like aTokina 11-16mm for landscape or a nice zoom like a Sigma 150-600mm for wildlife or anything you might desire that will allow you.expand your photography in the direction you choose. Lenses are always a good choice but keep in mind if you buy lenses for APS-C bodies and you upgrade to a full frame body those APS-C lenses will not work on full frame bodies. So if you think you may eventually move to a full frame body eventually, buy lenses that will work on full frame cameras.<br><br>

 

 

You will have to decide what you want more, upgrade the camera body or new lenses. New lenses are fun, but so is a camera loaded with features and improvements in low light high ISO low noise, more focal points, better focusing, higher resolution. What do you want more? Either way, you get to upgrade your tools. But remember, a new camera body will not make you a better photographer, it will just be a different tool. That is all these are tools for photography. So upgrade if you really want to.<br><br>

Mark,

Thanks a lot for taking the time to respond. That was very informative. The more I toss this around the more I see myself eventually getting a full framer also. I am the type of person who actually likes to shoot anything and everything so I think it would benefit me to have both. You sound like you use a lot of different brands of lenses. Is this price related or do some of those actually perform better than the Canons? Thanks again for responding. I'm getting a lot of good advice from a lot of good people and it's well appreciated.

What kind of problems are you having with action shots?

- What action/sport?

- What specific shots?

 

I ask this because I shot action with a full manual camera and had no problem; football, soccer, basketball, volleyball, track, baseball, etc.

Maybe you are relying too much on the camera and less on your own skills.

Gary,

That could be some of my problem.....relying more on the camera instead of trusting myself. This probably hold truer with wildlife shots where I feel like I have one shot and one shot only and don't want to blow it. If I feel like I can afford miscalculations and still get good quality shots I don't seem to have problems with manual shots as in a sports event.

The older version is one of the oldest of the EOS lenses in design. It is somewhat fragile in that you MUST turn off AF before manually focusing.

 

The newer one (the IS version) is another kettle of fish, but It is much better than the old one, but costs a lot more ( see http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/847-canon35f2isff?start=2 )

Thanks JDMvW.

I have an XSi. It is my work horse camera and I love it. It is very competent for macro photography. You can use extension tubes, as mentioned above, or get a dedicated macro lens which will also serve as a fast prime. If you learn to shoot macro with live view, you'll find you can get excellent results with the XSi. With regard to wildlife, this camera has good things going for it. Successful wildlife photography (any genre) is based in good technique and learned skills. You can learn skills for macro or wildlife/nature with the XSi. 4fps isn't fast, but with proper camera settings and a decent lens, you can use that frame rate to build skills and practice technique for birds in flight. Geese and seagulls are perfect subjects for this. (I'm assuming that birds are included in wild life.)

 

The XSi is just terrible at high ISO (400 works fine), and the tilt screen of more modern models would be a pleasant feature with macro and live view shooting. Aside from those shortcomings, it's a solid, good camera. My advice is work with it to build skills. Rent lenses to explore your interest in wild life. Then, think carefully and critically about what you want from a camera before you get another body. Cameras are tools. Understand what job you want it to do, then get the right tool for that job. Keep the XSi till it dies.

Laura,

Thanks a lot for responding to my post. I've actually never used live view before but I will try it next chance I get. In answer to one of your questions, yes I do include birds as wildlife. I don't dislike my little XSI, far from it....it has been very good to me over the years. I just feel like I need to experiment more in terms of equipment. It's mainly the shortcomings you mention that have me wanting to improve my gear. I don't ever plan to discard my XSI ever no matter what I end up. Thanks again Laura.

Mark,

Thanks a lot for taking the time to respond. That was very informative. The more I toss this around the more I see myself eventually getting a full framer also. I am the type of person who actually likes to shoot anything and everything so I think it would benefit me to have both. You sound like you use a lot of different brands of lenses. Is this price related or do some of those actually perform better than the Canons? Thanks again for responding. I'm getting a lot of good advice from a lot of good people and it's well appreciated.

Canon make some fine lenses, there L glass lenses are there professional lenses and some of their best lenses in both sharpness and build quality. You can recognize a L series lens by the red stripe out at the end of the lens. These may be a black or white lens. They can vary in price range, but their faster and bigger L series lenses can range from affordable to I will never own one of those unless I hit the lottery. The really big lenses can be very expensive, but can be rented.<br><br>

Canon also makes consumer lenses and some of these are very nice and sharp but may not have the build quality. Pro lenses generally cost more<br><br>.

There are some great 3rd party lenses out there made by a number of manufacturers, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina and more. Third party lenses can be very sharp and have a good enough to great build quality. If you want to get really great lenses it pays to do you research.<br><br>

Look at reviews of lenses on many websites and YouTube. Look for what is being said about sharpness center to edge, sharpness at various f-stops, lens bokeh when shot wide open (When the f-stop is a low number like f/2.8 down to f/1.2 id the lens can go that low. What do they say about the chromatic aberration of the lens (those red and blue edges that can appear on the edge of subjects) Chromatic aberration at various f/stops. Look at image stabilization. How well does the camera lock focus in different light with a lens, how fast does the lens focus. Now some of this how well does the camera focus with a lens may also depend on the camera, but they are usually testing these lenses with a good camera like a 5D Mark III or better or maybe a 7D Mark II. Some of the old reviews may be using older cameras. You want to get the pros and cons of each lens before you buy.<br><br>

I like the reviews that compare competing lens manufacturers, they show you side by side sharpness, and compare all the above.<br><br>

I recently purchased a used Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 Contemporary, I was reading reviews comparing it to the Sigma 150-600mm Sport, the Tamron 150-600mm and the Canon 100-400 L Mark II.<br><br>

These lenses new have a good range in price.<br><br>

The Canon 100-400 L MK II lens was selling new for $2049<br><br>

The Sigma 150-600 mm Contemporary is about $1000 Though I found a used one less than a year old for $700 being sold because it was to heavy for his wife. He owned two of these.<br><br>

The Sigma 150-600mm Sport going for $2000<br><br>

The Tamron 150-600mm is on sale today or something going for around $870-$1000.<br><br>

I liked the reviews on the Sigma, met the seller at a Starbucks and tried out the lens and purchased it.<br><br>

I already own a Canon 100-400 L MK I, but may put this one up on Craigslist.<br><br>

I went third party for my Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8, great reviews, even when compared against the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L MK II.<br><br>

Now the Canon version is built like a tank, a big white lens and I would have been happy with one but they were around $2100 at the time, think they came down a bit to about $1950, but the Tamron was selling for $1300 at the time and they came down too. I also compared the reviews of the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8. The reviews had a lot of nice things to say about the Tamron and some said it was a tad sharper than the Canon. I will just say it is a great lens.<br><br>

I do own a Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L version I love the lens<br><br>

I do own a Canon 17-40 f/4 L great lens.<br><br>

I have bought the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 lens again purchased because of reviews and the only thing better was the Canon 50mm f/1.2 that was selling about 4 times the price at the time. Love the lens. Great Bokeh, fast and sharp.<br><br>

The old Tokina was sold when I moved to a 6D as the 17-40mm Canon on the 6D gave a similar image that the Tokina gave on a a crop sensor camera. But again, did research.<br><br>

So my point is, you can get goods lenses from any manufacturer, they all have pros and cons, but do the reviews, post questions in the Canon forum saying I am consider this lens, does anyone have any thoughts on it? Is it any good. Are there know issues and is there something else that may be better. Make an educated purchase. Being new to photography it is easy to not be sure what questions to ask. That is where asking questions in the forums is great. You get valuable input from others who have been doing this for years. Folks here love sharing knowledge and we all learn from each other. <br><br>

<br><br>

 

Canon make some fine lenses, there L glass lenses are there professional lenses and some of their best lenses in both sharpness and build quality. You can recognize a L series lens by the red stripe out at the end of the lens. These may be a black or white lens. They can vary in price range, but their faster and bigger L series lenses can range from affordable to I will never own one of those unless I hit the lottery. The really big lenses can be very expensive, but can be rented.<br><br>

 

Canon also makes consumer lenses and some of these are very nice and sharp but may not have the build quality. Pro lenses generally cost more<br><br>.

 

There are some great 3rd party lenses out there made by a number of manufacturers, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina and more. Third party lenses can be very sharp and have a good enough to great build quality. If you want to get really great lenses it pays to do you research.<br><br>

Look at reviews of lenses on many websites and YouTube. Look for what is being said about sharpness center to edge, sharpness at various f-stops, lens bokeh when shot wide open (When the f-stop is a low number like f/2.8 down to f/1.2 id the lens can go that low. What do they say about the chromatic aberration of the lens (those red and blue edges that can appear on the edge of subjects) Chromatic aberration at various f/stops. Look at image stabilization. How well does the camera lock focus in different light with a lens, how fast does the lens focus. Now some of this how well does the camera focus with a lens may also depend on the camera, but they are usually testing these lenses with a good camera like a 5D Mark III or better or maybe a 7D Mark II. Some of the old reviews may be using older cameras. You want to get the pros and cons of each lens before you buy.<br><br>

 

I like the reviews that compare competing lens manufacturers, they show you side by side sharpness, and compare all the above.<br><br>

I recently purchased a used Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 Contemporary, I was reading reviews comparing it to the Sigma 150-600mm Sport, the Tamron 150-600mm and the Canon 100-400 L Mark II.<br><br>

 

These lenses new have a good range in price.<br><br>

 

The Canon 100-400 L MK II lens was selling new for $2049<br><br>

The Sigma 150-600 mm Contemporary is about $1000 Though I found a used one less than a year old for $700 being sold because it was to heavy for his wife. He owned two of these.<br><br>

The Sigma 150-600mm Sport going for $2000<br><br>

The Tamron 150-600mm is on sale today or something going for around $870-$1000.<br><br>

 

I liked the reviews on the Sigma, met the seller at a Starbucks and tried out the lens and purchased it.<br><br>

 

I already own a Canon 100-400 L MK I, but may put this one up on Craigslist.<br><br>

 

I went third party for my Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8, great reviews, even when compared against the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L MK II.<br><br>

Now the Canon version is built like a tank, a big white lens and I would have been happy with one but they were around $2100 at the time, think they came down a bit to about $1950, but the Tamron was selling for $1300 at the time and they came down too. I also compared the reviews of the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8. The reviews had a lot of nice things to say about the Tamron and some said it was a tad sharper than the Canon. I will just say it is a great lens.<br><br>

 

I do own a Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L version I love the lens<br><br>

 

I do own a Canon 17-40 f/4 L great lens.<br><br>

 

I have bought the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 lens again purchased because of reviews and the only thing better was the Canon 50mm f/1.2 that was selling about 4 times the price at the time. Love the lens. Great Bokeh, fast and sharp.<br><br>

 

The old Tokina was sold when I moved to a 6D as the 17-40mm Canon on the 6D gave a similar image that the Tokina gave on a a crop sensor camera. But again, did research.<br><br>

 

So my point is, you can get goods lenses from any manufacturer, they all have pros and cons, but do the reviews, post questions in the Canon forum saying I am consider this lens, does anyone have any thoughts on it? Is it any good. Are there know issues and is there something else that may be better. Make an educated purchase. Being new to photography it is easy to not be sure what questions to ask. That is where asking questions in the forums is great. You get valuable input from others who have been doing this for years. Folks here love sharing knowledge and we all learn from each other. <br><br>

Hey Mark,

Thanks for all the information you've been providing. I do believe, like yourself, in reading and hearing all I can before making a decision. I didn't use to be like that but I am now lol. Have you ever had a bad experience with buying a used camera or lens? This meme I saw keeps coming to mind. It showed a photo of a bunch of cameras and lenses and the cation was..."Get your kids into photography, they'll never have money for drugs." I have committed myself to going full on into my photographic endeavour and plan to do whatever it takes to improve. You're right on in complimenting the people on this site. Thanks again.

Hi Ron: If you are happy with how the Canon DSLR camera and lenses feels in your hands, how you shoot, and are comfortable with the Canon menu system, then stay with Canon. You have a nice starter selection of lenses with the 50mm, the 24mm pancake, and 55-250mm telephoto. I have both the 50mm F1.8 and 24mm pancake lenses, and I love them. They are so small to toss into a daypack, or messenger bag to go shooting. If you are looking at a lens upgrade, I'd pick up something in a wide-to-telephoto, such as a Canon 24-105mm L lens, or an EF-S 18-135mm lens. I have a Canon EF 28-105mm lens that I always seem to go to first when I'm taking pictures. It is like my go-to, walk-around lens. Another potential lens upgrade for a crop camera body is the Canon EF-S 10-18mm ultrawide lens. It is an almost L quality lens, at a very good price. It is a great lens to take landscape photography, or even to move in closer for a different, slightly distorted perspective.

In terms of a second Canon camera body, there are a wide range of flavors, from new and used crop and full-frame bodies. Try to determine what you need for features and improvements in a second body--higher ISO, or faster frames-per-second, weather sealing, video capability, and then determine what you are willing to budget for a second camera body. Camera bodies often become obsolete after two or three years, when Canon and Nikon bring out their latest and greatest---better than all those older camera bodies. Of course, there may be nothing wrong with the older camera bodies, as they may still have plenty of life in them, and you can pick them up for a song--they just do not have all the latest and greatest features.

As with used camera equipment, there are a lot of good quality used lenses and camera bodies that you can pick up for less than a new equivalent. You just have to be careful at what you are looking at, what your photographic needs are, shop carefully and ask questions to the seller about the merchandise they are selling. Look at the customer reviews on eBay and Amazon on both the camera products and the seller. And it is not just cameras and lenses, but also tripods, camera bags, flashes, studio lighting--just about everything. Shop smart.

Hi Ron: If you are happy with how the Canon DSLR camera and lenses feels in your hands, how you shoot, and are comfortable with the Canon menu system, then stay with Canon. You have a nice starter selection of lenses with the 50mm, the 24mm pancake, and 55-250mm telephoto. I have both the 50mm F1.8 and 24mm pancake lenses, and I love them. They are so small to toss into a daypack, or messenger bag to go shooting. If you are looking at a lens upgrade, I'd pick up something in a wide-to-telephoto, such as a Canon 24-105mm L lens, or an EF-S 18-135mm lens. I have a Canon EF 28-105mm lens that I always seem to go to first when I'm taking pictures. It is like my go-to, walk-around lens. Another potential lens upgrade for a crop camera body is the Canon EF-S 10-18mm ultrawide lens. It is an almost L quality lens, at a very good price. It is a great lens to take landscape photography, or even to move in closer for a different, slightly distorted perspective.

 

In terms of a second Canon camera body, there are a wide range of flavors, from new and used crop and full-frame bodies. Try to determine what you need for features and improvements in a second body--higher ISO, or faster frames-per-second, weather sealing, video capability, and then determine what you are willing to budget for a second camera body. Camera bodies often become obsolete after two or three years, when Canon and Nikon bring out their latest and greatest---betthanks a er than all those older camera bodies. Of course, there may be nothing wrong with the older camera bodies, as they may still have plenty of life in them, and you can pick them up for a song--they just do not have all the latest and greatest features.

 

As with used camera equipment, there are a lot of good quality used lenses and camera bodies that you can pick up for less than a new equivalent. You just have to be careful at what you are looking at, what your photographic needs are, shop carefully and ask questions to the seller about the merchandise they are selling. Look at the customer reviews on eBay and Amazon on both the camera products and the seller. And it is not just cameras and lenses, but also tripods, camera bags, flashes, studio lighting--just about everything. Shop smart.

Eric,

I appreciate you taking the time to comment and the suggestions also. Like many others on here you've given me a lot to think about. I will definitely look iinto the lenses you mentioned. Thanks again.

I recently saw this quotation which seems appropriate here - “Skill in photography is acquired by practice and not by purchase.” Percy W. Harris

Larry