What to update on my Canon system

[rodney_councell]

I have a Canon 10D, with the following lens. Canon 28-135mm IS lens

and the Canon 70-300mm IS lens. I am just a camera bug, who like to

take pictures. I have done a couple of wedding for friends, family

reunions etc. -And last fall in Ireland took some very nice photos.

My question is that I want to upgrade. Either the 10d to a 20D or

would I be better off to upgrade to a "L" lens. I thought about

upgarding to the Canon EF 28-300 IS lens, but it is just too large

and heavy. The body or a lens ?

Would apprecate you thoughts.<div></div>

[steve_dunn2]

<p>Better lens(es). The 20D is certainly better than the 10D in a number of ways, some of them user friendliness (such as virtually instantaneous startup and proper tagging of Adobe RGB files) and some of them which will actually show up in your pictures (lower noise at high ISOs, more megapixels). But the 10D is a good camera, and I think you'll get a better bang for your buck from upgrading lenses.</p>

 

<p>What focal lengths do you use the most? Getting a better lens that covers those focal lengths might be a good use of money. Do you find the 28-135 doesn't go wide enough, or the 70-300 doesn't go long enough? If so, adding a lens to expand your range might be a good use of money. Is there another drawback of one of these lenses (not fast enough, not sharp enough) which you might wish to rectify? Without knowing any of these sorts of things about you and how you use your lenses, it will be very difficult to offer suggestions tailored to you; all we could do is say what we use and why, which could be useful, but we could also be wasting our time and yours with information which is irrelevant to you. Also, do you have a budget? For instance, replacing the 70-300 with the 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM and a 1.4x TC would clearly be an improvement (though it fails the "large and heavy" test), but if your budget is (say) USD1000, we can rule this one out immediately.</p>

 

<p>The 28-300 ought to be a pretty good lens, but yeah, it's a monster compared to either of your existing lenses, and is really only a good choice if you <em>need</em> a one-lens solution. Otherwise, you can get some or all of faster, smaller, lighter, and sharper by splitting this into more than one lens.</p>

[John Crowe]

The 28-300 would not be an upsize not an upgrade. The 10D will be fine until the DSLR market settles down in 3 or 4 years. So, yes it depends on what focal length or zoom range you use the most. Since you have two all purpose zooms I would suggest a couple of prime lenses in the focal lengths that you use the most. Come to think of it you can't go wrong with a 50/1.8 for about $80, to start.

 

 

If you would like a wider lens then you are probably after one of the expensive wide zooms like the 17-40/4 L, or perhaps you could get by with the 20/2.8 which goes with your shorter zoom well.

 

 

If you want better image quality to go with your telezoom the 200/2.8 L or 300/4 L would be exceptional. Good luck!

[KenPapai]

Not sure why you linked to the full-sized image. It's got some serious purple fringing going on but a beautiful setting and gorgeous colors you shot:<div></div>

[PuppyDigs]

Hmm, for the most bang for the buck, update the photographer. New gear will make little

or no difference for general photography. However, a photography course at a community

college, a self-study course, a workshop, etc., can work miracles.

[sl attanapola]

Why don't you try a wider lens?

If you can get one that has a 24mm angle of view equivalent you will find it a great lens for landscapes,architechure and taking pictures of large groups of people.

[peter_phan]

I would go for a 17-40/4L because you are lacking in the wide-angle department. Then I would get a fast prime lens, like the 50/1.8, 50/1.4, or 85/1.8 for low light shooting and for shallow depth of field shooting. Any of these additions will open up your photographic potential much more than getting a new body, especially if you're currently enjoying your 10D. Just hold onto your 10D until the next upgrade cycle (the 30D?). Forget about the 28-300 IS because it really isn't going to offer much more than what you currently have.

[johnb]

Rodney <br>

Like others said, I would keep the 10D and get some "L" glass.<br>

Thats what I did, got a 100-400L IS and kept my old 10D.<br>

A 17-40L is also a great suggestion for the wide angle range.<br>

 

However large and heavy might be a problem with telephoto zoom lenses.

 

Good Luck :+)

[david_french3]

I compared the 28-300, 70-200 and 100-400 L series lenses alongside each other. I

found the 28-300 (which was the one I was most hoping would be good) just wasn't as

sharp as either of the others. Because it's also relatively slow I ruled it out. (I went for the

70-200 and a 2x teleconverter and have no regrets.) However, the 70-200 is no less large

and heavy than the 28-300, not that you'd notice anyway.

 

Personally I'd recommend you look at the 24-70 F/2.8 L, which I also have; or the 70-200

F/2.8 L. You *may* find that your 28-135IS is nearly as good as the 24-70 in terms of

clarity, because some of the 28-135s seem very good (although some of them aren't), so

do a comparison with your own lens and see if you think it's worth it. (In the testing I did,

the 28-135IS I was looking at, which was second-hand, was actually sharper than the 28

-300 L series at wideish apertures.)

 

This said, neither of your lenses are a disaster, but have a play with various Ls and see

what you think. By the way, I like your photo!

[jim_larson1]

I agree with Puppy: A photographer upgrade would do the most good.

 

For "snap shooting", the 20D is too close in capability to the 10D. That upgrade would be the *least* bang for the *most* buck.

 

How much do you like the 70-300/IS? How reliant on IS are you? Upgrading the 70-300/IS to a 70-200/4L would be a wonderful upgrade.

 

A 17-40L will be the *most bang* for the *least buck*. It expands your working range, with a top notch premo quality lens.

 

A 50/1.8 prime will also open you up to the world of portraits.

 

For the cost of a 20D, you could (and should) get all three lenses.

 

Also: If you are spending money. . .$170 for a 420EX flash would be good too.

[jon_austin]

No one's asked the question yet, so I'll bite: What aspect of your current photography do you find (most) lacking? That should be your first priority as you determine how to upgrade (or expand) your current kit.

 

That said, if I were in your shoes, I'd consider adding a wide-angle lens, a fast prime lens (everyone should have at least one) or an external flash (if you don't already have one; you didn't say).

[bens]

Agree with the sentiments, wide angle and fast aperture. I say if you are not a pro SAVE YOUR MONEY. There are excellent third party and Canon primes for many needs. The Canon 17-40 is widely regarded as a great buy, but there's also the well regarded Tamron 17-35/2.8-4. You should run, not walk, to get the 50/1.8, which sells for less than $100. Then I'd stand pat for awhile and learn. Consider if you get into short telephoto, the Tamron 28-75 or Sigma 24-70 instead of the Canon 24-70 L. I also have a number of Canon primes, the 24/2.8, 35/2 and 85/1.8, which I would compare to any Canon L lens. By buying one at a time, I haven't had to spend 1-1500 on a lens and have no other options for another year or so. Your picture shows some serious talent.

[peng_kit_wong]

I have the same question as you, either getting a 20D or get some lenses. I only use primes but I intend to skip 20D this time and save the money to get 24-70L. I will be getting this lense this weekend and looking forward to it.

 

My recomendations is to get some good lense like 20 2.8 or 85 1.8. They are beautiful!