What upgrad should i do!

[pauloriskas]

<p>Hi everybody!<br>

I have 3 lenses. A Canon<strong> 24-105mm f/4L IS USM EF</strong> ,<strong>18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS EF-S and </strong> <strong>75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM EF. </strong> The body is an old 300D. My priority is to improve the picture quality, so first i was thinking to change the body for a 400d, 450d or D20 or D30. But i thing lenses are more important for picture quality,in some way. So my doubt is: change the body ,for what model? Or change the 18-55mm lens for a better one, and which. May anyone help me to take decision?</p>

[arie_vandervelden1]

<p>What kind of subjects do you like to shoot? Do you have a budget?</p>

[daniel flather]

<p>Toss the 75-300, get the 50/1.4 and a tripod. No one really needs 50mm+, and you do have the 24-105.</p>

[phule]

<p>[[My priority is to improve the picture quality]]</p>

<p>The sooner this statement is clarified the better people can answer your question.</p>

[nathan_meador]

<p>If portraits make up any of your shooting style, then I'd say upgrade with some lighting. </p>

[pauloriskas]

<p>Thanks guys. As you can see my folio is multidirect. Portraits, landscaps, night scenes, street scenes, holidays shots, familiar partys, abstract moments, feeling moments etc.<br>

Picture quality is in fact a statment with a lot of readings, a personal statment, but let's say crispy and detailed pictures with calibrate colors and a good greyscale.<br>

My budget is about 400/500 usd.</p>

[KenPapai]

<p>A D30 is a serious DOWNGRADE. No such thing as a D20, unless it's Nikon?</p>

<p>A 40D would be a serious upgrade, yes. $800 brand new.</p>

[tdigi]

<p>Much depends on what body style is important to you. The 450D or 500D are smaller, the 40D and 50D are larger more pro grade bodies. You really have to see what feels right for you, both have advantages and disadvantages. I owned a 300D and while a decent camera any of the above will be a big improvement. However, having said that, with only a budget of $400 to $500 you would have to go the used route.</p>

[pauloriskas]

<p>Oh yes, of course used route is a possibility if not the way to go. I prefer the D bodys. But the questions stays. Body or lenses?</p>

[arie_vandervelden1]

<p>I think a 450D would be a significant upgrade. You get heaps of megapixels, better high iso, much better AF, sensor cleaning, live view, on-camera flash control, iso in the viewfinder, big lcd screen, and lots more goodies. In all it's a much more responsive camera.</p>

<p>After that... I'd start saving for an ultrawide (e.g. Canon 10-22), a flash (e.g. 430EX) and maybe a fast prime or macro prime.</p>

[pauloriskas]

<p>I try to use no flash. I hate to use the flash. I only use it to fill in or in family/party pictures.<br>

So, at this point most of you think i should upgrad the cam and not lenses!</p>

[fmueller]

<p>The 430ex is a great flash, but ex flash units don't work well with the 300D, which had significant flash metering problem. These were overcome in later generations of entry level Canon DLRS, and even though I use flash very rarely, I consider that to be a good reason to upgrade from a 300D. If you do need flash, having just auto flash is a hassle if you want to shoot macro or tele. However, if you don't want to use flash at all, you have one less reason to ditch the 300D. </p>

<p>What strikes me is that your main investment appears to be in the 24-105 - a lens that doesn't handle well on a APS-C body like your 300D due to an inconvenient range of focal length. This range also overlaps heavily with your other lenses. Personally, I'd sell the 24-105 or start saving for a 5D, on which this lens handles like a dream. If you do sell the 24-105 and 300D, you should be able to swing a 500D and a 10-22. That would also be a nice set.</p>

[pauloriskas]

<p>An interesting point of view. I will keep your suggestion,thanks! And by the way, why not a 40D instead a 500D or even a 450D?</p>

[pauloriskas]

<p>Well,after surfing a few i made my decision. I'm gona sell the 300d and the 24-105mm and buy a 2nd hand 40D.<br /> Now i need your suggestion for a lens that performs well with the 40D body.</p>

[tdigi]

<p>I love the 24-105 but in your situation I think its a good move to sell it. I would get a 40D and a Tamron 17-50. </p>

<p> </p>

[len_kocurek]

<p><em>Now i need your suggestion for a lens that performs well with the 40D body.</em></p>

<p><br /> The 24-105.</p>

[bill_dewberry]

<p>Do not sell the 24-105, you will regret it down the road. Keep the 24-105, get a 40 D body. As you continue to upgrade bodies, the 24-105 will move with you.</p>

[John Sully]

<p>You have a very weird selection of lenses. First of all I would toss the 18-55 and the 75-300. Keep the 24-105, this is a nice lens except for the barrel distortion at 24 and rather severe vingetting at 24. This should not be a problem with APS-C sensor cameras such as those you are considering. This lens should be a good walkaround normal to short zoom</p>

<p>So what would I do? I would toss the 75-300 (I couldn't find a review, is there a reason?) and the 18-55 and get a wide zoom. The Canon lens would be the 10-22 EF-S, although Sigma and Tamron make similar lenses for considerably less money. Then I would get the 70-300 f/4-5.6 USM IS III if you have the money or an equivalent Sigma or Tamron if you don't have the money. If you don't need the IS, the Canon 100-300 f/4.5-5.6 USM is a decent, if not spectacular tele zoom. I owned this lens for quite a while before I sold it and bought two replacements: a 70-200 f/2.8 L and a Sigma APO 400 f/5.6 EX HSM. I learned the hard way that reasonably priced tele zooms are not going to be great. Bigger bucks will get you the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 USM L IS (both Sigma and Tamron make equivalents).</p>

<p>After that, I would save my pennies and get a 40D or 50D for the body. But the first thing to do is rationalize your lens collection.</p>

[chrisnielsen]

<p>I had both the 18-55 and the 75-300 and they were nothing short of awful. The 70-300 I had was better but I found out later the 70-200 f/4 L was about the same price and much better. A 17-40 L would be a great replacement for the 18-55 I'm guessing</p>

[robvine]

<p>I'd get a 10-22 for better landscape work as this will go well with the 24-105. The 70-300IS is a good buy if you want a better tele lens but I think that getting a 40/50D would be the best move. Maybe even a second-hand 5D? I still have my 300D but it seems ancient compared to my 5D.</p>

[pauloriskas]

<p>Thank you guys ,i'm listening.......<br>

For sure i will get the 40d and keep the 24-105. Selling the 75-300 and the18-55....seems a good move.</p>

[markonestudios]

I would ditch the 18-55 and 75-300 and get a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. I wouldn't sell the 24-105L. You'll likely regret it.

[mike_hitchen]

<p>I haev not used the 24-105 so cannot comment but the consensus view seems to be to keep it. The 18-55 IS is a decent lens so if it were my decision, my first upgrade priority would be to get either the 70-300 IS or the 70-200 f4L. The 70-200 does not have IS but the f4 may be more useful for indoor shots (where subject movement is as much an issue as camera shake) and portraits (depth of field using f4). There are lods of threads on this forum comparing the two cameras.<br>

Then I would look at getting the 10-22 for thsoe extra-wide landscapes if that is what you want to do.</p>

[robert gordon]

<p>In all likelihood your current gear will produce stunnng images for years to come if you dedicate yourself to seeing well.</p>

[matthias_meixner2]

<p>If you are satisfied with the focal range of your lenses, I would not change anything until you know what exactly disturbs you about your equipment. Just learn the strengths and weaknesses of your current equipment.</p>