Upgrade choice on budget

[prateek_g]

<p>I am a amateur hobby photographer. Gear consists of Canon 1000D, Canon 50mm f1.8, Tamron 17-50 Non-VC, Tokina 100mm Macro and Canon 430EX-II.<br>

I have a budget of about £500 to spend on my upgrades. My photography normally consists of vacation photographs with family, nature, flowers, macro, etc.<br>

The upgrade paths which I feel I have are:<br>

- Upgrade my body by exchanging the current one with used Canon 40D (about £200 more in exchange)<br>

- OR, Get a telephoto lens like the new Tamron 70-300 VC<br>

- OR, Get a ultra wide angle - Tokina 11-16 / Sigma 10-20 / Canon (used) 10-22<br>

I would be traveling to Scotland and few other places in Europe in the near future. What do the experts here think would give me most bang for my money?</p>

 

[JosvanEekelen]

<p>With a new body the only thing you will gain is better handling, image quality will remain approximately the same since as far I remember 1000D equals a 400D which is of the same generation as a 40D.<br>

I would choose a tele (zoom), 70-300 or 75-300. Also consider Canon offerings, their best 70 or 75-300 (I always forget which one) non-L IS zoom is considered to be a great value for the price and it might fit your budget. check the archives for more info on the correct lens. I'm a tele guy so YMMV and you may prefer a wide angle lens.</p>

[acedigital]

<p>The Tokina11-16 gets great reviews but is a little over your budget<br>

http://www.amazon.com/Tokina-11-16MM-ATX-Canon-Digital/dp/B0014Z3XMC/ref=wl_it_dp_o?ie=UTF8&coliid=I3P3TXNDTYKAF7&colid=3V2P45ZYUHQJW</p>

[matthijs]

I'd say tele as well.

 

You've got wide to short tele covered as well as macro.

 

Ultrawide is pretty much a specialty.

 

But opinions may differ.

 

By the way, the Canon options are pretty decent in your price range: EFs 55-250 or EF 70-300 IS.

[bueh]

<p>I would would probably go for a used 40D plus a used Tokina 12-24mm f/4 superwide lens. The 40D has much better ergonomics and will make camera operation and picture-taking much more efficient and intuitive. And a superwide lens comes very handy in many situations (although it takes a while to master it).</p>

[tom_burke3]

<p>Prateek: I've just come back from 48 hours in Rome where I found my 17-70mm Sigma lens just about perfect. So as long as you're happy with the reach and optical quality of your Tamron 17-50 then you've got the 'walk-around lens' covered. I also took a 35mm f2 but to my surprise hardly used it at all. There weren't any occasions when I wanted wider than the Sigma provided (of course, that might well just be my style), but there were a few times when I could have done with longer. I wished I'd taken my 55-250. I note that you don't have a lens in that focal length at all, so you might want to think about that. I wanted to use it to pick out details in long-range scenes.</p>

<p>As far as bodies go, what's the attraction of the 50D? I'm sure it's a very good body but so is the 550D, and there are some good deals on that in the UK at the moment. You might well be able to get a 550D + 55-250 by p/ex your 1000D + £500 or so.</p>

[PatrickMP]

<p>Prateek, if you are going to Scotland and other places in Europe, I'd lean towards a wider lens, selling the Tamron 17-50 and picking up something comparable in length (24-70?). You might spend a bit more, but since you were willing to go £200 in exchange for a new body, that seems like a non-issue.<br>

Going to beautiful countries like that, I would hope you'd gain more from taking in the wide landscapes. A telephone isn't going to do that for you.<br>

Cheers.</p>

[richterjw]

<blockquote>

<p>A telephone isn't going to do that for you.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I certainly agree with this. JR</p>

[prateek_g]

<p>Patrick: How would 24-70 be any wider than Tamron 17-50?</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<blockquote>

<p>Going to beautiful countries like that, I would hope you'd gain more from taking in the wide landscapes. A telephone isn't going to do that for you.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>True, but the question you should be asking yourself, Prateek, is whether you find 17mm to be sufficient for shooting landscapes. I personally seldom go wider than 24mm on my full frame bodies, which is roughly equivalent to 17mm on your 1000D.</p>

<p>Furthermore, I find my telephoto zoom (70-200/4 L IS) to be indispensible for photographing my children outdoors. It's also very good for landscape/architectural details, and will even serve as a "macro" lens in a pinch. I certainly wouldn't travel without it.</p>

[prateek_g]

<p>Thanks Mark. I have 100mm f2.8 Macro which normally serves me as my portrait lens. Have been eyeing the 70-200 f/4 L IS for a long time now, but unable to get myself to spend the amount on it. Do you reckon I should get the non-IS version of it or get a 70-300 IS (Tamron or Canon)?</p>

 

[arie_vandervelden1]

<p>I'd get an ultrawide. I'll be great for Scotland (landscapes, seascapes) as well as cityscapes elsewhere in Europe.</p>

[mike_hitchen]

<p>Ultrawides are to my mind a speciality lens. While they do produce excellent landscape pictures, you need to be very careful about composition to avoid reams of non-descript images. If landscapes are your thing then you should have a tripod whichever lens you use and once you have a tripod then panoramic stitching is a good way to see how often you would use a 10-22 (or equivalent).</p>

<p>I take as many landscapes with my 70-300 as I do with my 17-55. I wrestled with the same choice you (70-300 or 70-200 f4L without IS) and never regretted going for the 70-300 - it is excellent glass for the money and I find the added reach combined with IS to be overall more useful than constant f4. And the AF is adequate for anything but really quick subjects once you have locked onto it.<br>

Mind you, I recently got the 70-200 F4L IS and it is an absolute dream to use - well balanced, mechanically so smooth and it has slightly more colour contrast (but I still have the 70-300). If you have the money available and you do go for it I am sure that any buyer's remorse will be over quite quickly :o) . Both the 70-300 and 70-200 hold their price well so maybe you could buy either and sell when you have more money to buy the 70-200f4L IS and look on the loss as a rental fee.</p>

[nathangardner]

<p>It's hard to say not knowing your shooting style. I would ask yourself what you're missing in your equipment bag, or what is holding you back? Figure out what one piece of equipment would contribute most to your own personal style of photography. For example, if you shoot wildlife a telephoto zoom would be in the cards, but if you don't then it may be a wasted purchase. As I said, just ask yourself, "What am I missing?" If you can't answer this off the top of your head then a quick glance at your photos may help. Look at all the exif data and see what focal lengths you shoot most or f/stops. If you're using one extreme of a zoom more often than anything else, then a lens beyond that extreme would seem sensible. If you shoot wide open a lot, then maybe a faster lens or prime would make sense. I think you kinda get the idea of what I'm saying. The truth is, we can all comment on the quality of specific lenses, but you are the only one that can really tell which one will be most useful for yourself.</p>

[faysal]

<p>If you just want to buy something new and are not sure what to get, I suggest this:<br>

1) Go to a camera store and play.<br>

2) See if you can overcome your gear acquisition syndrome by attending training classes.<br>

Your desires are all over the place, so honestly, playing around or learning new things may help you find out what you really want.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<blockquote>

<p>Have been eyeing the 70-200 f/4 L IS for a long time now, but unable to get myself to spend the amount on it. Do you reckon I should get the non-IS version of it or get a 70-300 IS (Tamron or Canon)?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I picked up a mint used copy of the 70-200/4 L IS a couple of years ago for a cost that was almost within your budget. It's such a good lens optically, and it's IS feature is so useful (for me at least), that I would save a few more pounds for a used copy if I were you.</p>

[markonestudios]

<blockquote>

<p>The upgrade paths which I feel I have are:...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have a question. Why do you feel a need to "upgrade"? what exactly do you think you're missing in your current setup?</p>

[orly_andico]

<p>I am kind of in the same position.. (I have the 17-40 and 100mm Canons) but got lucky enough to "borrow" a 70-200/4L IS after many years of drooling over one.</p>

<p>My initial reaction.. it's too long for my taste, and too slow. I find the 100/2.8 too long for people.</p>

<p>Maybe it's all the years staying under 100mm has made me not see the usefulness of 200mm.</p>

<p>Even though I'm on a crop body, I think the 24-105L is more useful than the 70-200/4. You won't be knocking people's socks off with the bokeh at 200mm f/4 anyway (the 100/2.8 will isolate background better).</p>

<p>I do intend to travel sometime soon and the 17-40 will do as an "all in one" lens. It does leave a "hole" at the longer end and the 100mm fixed lens isn't flexible enough. So.. I'd go for the 24-105L or on a small budget, the 28-105/3.5-4.5 which is now discontinued.</p>

<p>BTW 17mm on a crop body is 27mm on full-frame. Not that wide. My plan for ultra-wide is to lug a beater EOS50 film camera that I have lying around. The 17-40 is jaw-droppingly wide on that camera, and I use the super-wide end rarely enough that I can't justify a 10-22 or 5D Mk II!</p>