mweir2007 Posted June 18, 2011 Share Posted June 18, 2011 <p>I currently have a 450D and usually shoot landscape with a Tamron SP 10-24mm Di II lens. I'm now considering upgrading but should I get a better camera or lens? I was considering a secondhand 7D body or a 17-40 mm f/4.0 L lens but I can't afford both, any advice welcomed.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_pierlot Posted June 18, 2011 Share Posted June 18, 2011 <p>It's difficult to advise you, Mark, until we know a little more about your needs. For example, are you satisfied with the ultrawide perspective that your zoom yields, or would you like to a lens with longer minimum and maximum focal lengths (as your mentioning the EF 17-40 seems to suggest)? Are you happy with the image quality of the lens; how about the IQ of the body? Do you typically shoot landscapes from a tripod, handheld, or both? Etc.</p> <p>Generally speaking, full frame sensors are recommended for landscapes over crop sensors, given their greater inherent depths of field and ability to render finer detail. If you're shooting primarily from a tripod, I'd go for a refurbished original 5D, and a used 17-40. And if your budget can't quite bear that, you could get an EF 24/2.8 or 35/2 in lieu of the zoom. You will, or course, have to sell the Tamron if you get a 5D, but you could use the proceeds from that sale to help finance the other gear.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mweir2007 Posted June 18, 2011 Author Share Posted June 18, 2011 <p>Thanks Mark,<br> The Tamron lens is ok but I find I prefer using it between 18-24mm on a tripod rather than the extreme 10mm width (although occasionally it's been useful).<br> I've heard pairing a crop sensor with the 17-40 lens isn't really recommended but then I read that good glass out weighs a good camera so I'm a bit stuck re: which direction to head in</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stock-Photos Posted June 18, 2011 Share Posted June 18, 2011 <p>I agree that a FF body will offer more wide angle options for landscape. However, you may find the 10-24 a bit too wide on a FF body.</p> <p>Unless you make lots of large prints, I don't see a big advantage to upgrading the body.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_pierlot Posted June 18, 2011 Share Posted June 18, 2011 <p>I've only just acquired my first crop body, a 50D, to augment my 5DII and 1V's )among many other "full frame" film bodies), so I don't have any experience with EF-S (or third party equivalent) lenses. I have heard, however, that the Tokina 11-16 is optically the best ultrawide zoom currently available in EF mount.</p> <p>But if you prefer the 18-24mm range (on your 450D) over the ultrawide range, why not just get a used 5D (or 7D) and an EF 24/2.8 for now? Despite its archaic (and noisy) AF mechanism, it's very sharp, and will out-resolve any wide angle zoom you might be considering. And the 35/2 is another older, inexpensive EF prime with a good reputation.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mweir2007 Posted June 18, 2011 Author Share Posted June 18, 2011 <p>Many thanks J.<br /> So glass over body even with a crop sensor body?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mweir2007 Posted June 18, 2011 Author Share Posted June 18, 2011 <p>Thanks Mark,<br> It all seems like a bit of a mine field, although I'm aware it's a mine field of my own making. I might rent the lens/camera first to get a feel for what I prefer.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_pierlot Posted June 18, 2011 Share Posted June 18, 2011 <blockquote> <p>Glass over body?</p> </blockquote> <p>Yes and no. Glass is a longer term "investment," and obviously has huge influence over IQ; but, relative to how it used to be with film bodies (where the film and not the body made the IQ difference), so does the body/sensor. This is because, with film bodies, exposure occurs on the film (which is not part of the body), while with DSLR's, it occurs on the sensor (which is part of the body).</p> <p>For example, provided you're using the same film and lens under the same exposure conditions and both cameras are functioning properly, a bottom-of-the-line Canon AE-1 takes identical pictures to those of a top-of-the-line F-1, or 1V. Sadly, this is not the case with DSLR's, where superior IQ comes with a big pricetag.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philip_wilson Posted June 18, 2011 Share Posted June 18, 2011 <p>The Tamron 10-24 is an EF-S lens I believe so it cannot be used on full frame. I have a 7D and it is a fine camera - especially for the price (my 5DII and 1 series are better in many respects). While I never owned the 7D(or any other crop body) and the 17-40 at the same time am am not sure why this is not a good combination. I use my 16-35 F2.8 II as a standard lens on my 7D it is works very well. While my 17-40 had softer edges than the 16-35 II I would image that this will not be an issue on APS-C as they will be out of the shot.<br> The real question is - what problem are you truing to solve. The lens will solve different problems to the body. The lens gives you a faster aperture and longer range than you current Tamron (although you may well have other lenses). The body is better handling, more rugged, better AF, faster fps and has better resolution. You should be aware that the densely packed sensor on the 7D will show up all your lens issues. Even with top quality Canon L series glass I find my 7D shows lens issues more than my 5DII if you pixel peep.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDMvW Posted June 18, 2011 Share Posted June 18, 2011 <p>I agree with Mark (11:08 post) on this one.<br> <br /> Notwithstanding that, it's pretty much up to you. Eventually you will want to upgrade both (so the answer to your question of camera or lens is "yes"). The 450D IQ and MP count is high enough for very good results and quite large prints (certainly up to 33x48 cm or so) when viewed at a proper distance.</p> <p>I think that there is no real "need" for so-called "full-frame" (more properly 35mm sensor or DX, to borrow Nikon's nice term). However, they <em>are</em> very nice and do have swell, large viewfinders. Their major advantage is not pixels, but perhaps an edge in high ISO noise because of the greater spacing of the elements.</p> <p>I have both APS-C (aka DX or 'crop') and 35mm digital cameras and love them all. The latter lets me use a heritage shift lens that is too long on the APS-C cameras, otherwise, I would not have bothered.<br /> The smaller sensor gives me an edge when I use telephoto lenses.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mweir2007 Posted June 18, 2011 Author Share Posted June 18, 2011 <p>Thanks Philip and JDM,<br> I have a feeling that I'm going to try the 17-40 lens and stick with the 450d, which has served me well with no complaints at my current level of photography. As an EF lens I just have to remember to factor in the loss of image that I see in the viewfinder.<br> Anyone any idea of what the amount of crop is with an EF lens in a 450d? </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crowe Posted June 18, 2011 Share Posted June 18, 2011 <p>For landscapes I usually recommend full frame. In your case you only use the full frame equivalent of 28mm and above so a crop body is okay.</p> <p>If your crop body was a 40D to 60D, I would upgrade the lens first, but I think you will see many benefits upgrading from a "Rebel" to a used 7D. Later on you could consider adding the Canon EF 17-40/4 L, used Canon EF 17-35/2.8 L or used Canon EF 16-35/2.8 L (either version).</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mweir2007 Posted June 18, 2011 Author Share Posted June 18, 2011 <p>Thanks John,<br> Just when I think I've made a decision I get another spanner in the works (not your fault). Now I'm swaying back towards a body upgrade.........oh the pressure :)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philip_wilson Posted June 18, 2011 Share Posted June 18, 2011 <p>The image in the viewfinder is the image you will get (approximately as I suspect the 450D shows you just under 100% of the image - so there is probably a little bit around the edges that will be in the shot but not the viewfinder. When you mount a full frame lens (EF) on a crop sensor (EF-S) the viewfinder is the same as if you mount an EF-S lens. Thus the viewfinder image for a 17mm EF lens and a 17mm EF-S lens is the same as they are both 17mm lenses. The sensor in the camera does not change the lens focal length - a 17mm lens is a 17mm lens no matter what you mount it on. The crop factor or equivalence rating is a form of sloppy shorthand. For Canon APS-C it is 1.6x - thus the 17-40 is the equivalent of a 27mm to 64mm lens on a full frame body. What this really means is that the lens has the same angle of view. Thus on your 450 D the diagonal angle of view of the 17-40 is about 77degrees to 37 degrees. On a full frame body the lens has an angle of view of 104 to 57 degrees. What is happening is that the smaller sensor in the APS-C camera is only using the centre of the lens and thus has a narrower viewing angle. The reason I say that the equivalent is a sloppy term is that the lens is still a 17mm lens and thus the Depth of field and perspective is that of a 17mm lens (not the equivalent 27mm lens)<br> To show this at 5 feet and 17mm F4 on APS-C I get a depth of field of 4.7 feet. With the same 17mm lens on a full frame camera I get 10.3 feet. If i use a 27mm lens (the same angle of view as the 17mm on APS-C) on the full frame body at F4 and 5 feet I have a depth of field of 2.6 feet. This is why portrait shooters like full frame bodies as with the same angle of view I can achieve a much shallower depth of field. With more usual portrait focal lengths (85-135mm) this means that I can get a depth of field that is just a couple of inches and the background will be thrown completely out of focus. <br> This link may help you - by the way I understand that the 17-55 F2.8 is also a great lens. It is faster than the 17-40 and has image stabilization. However, I believe it is not quite as well built and is an EF-S lens so it will not fit full frame if you later go that way.<br> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_factor</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mweir2007 Posted June 18, 2011 Author Share Posted June 18, 2011 <p>Philip, thanks for the clear and understandable breakdown between EF v EF-S and FF and crop sensor.<br> Can I just say how great the advice is on PN from so many users.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_madio Posted June 18, 2011 Share Posted June 18, 2011 <p>@ the OP: You need to honestly identify the specific issues you are are trying to address then go from there (e.g. if you need a longer focal length the answer is obviously a new lens). I have (and still do) go through this process myself many times and when I am brutally honest with myself (still working on it ... we all like to play with new toys!) I realized it's more a matter of getting in front of more interesting things than equipment. Just my $0.02.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthijs Posted June 18, 2011 Share Posted June 18, 2011 The 450D is capable of making very good looking pictures. Given enough care and carefull processing. The lens might be limiting you, especially if you'd like a longer lens. However I think you should be able to create fine looking pictures with it. That said, you might want to take a good look at the EF-s 15-85 for your landscapes. The (one) time I used it I was very impressed. And if 15mm is wide enough for you it will give you a very flexible lens. Regards, Matthijs. P.S. It does distort somewhat at the wide end (as any wide zoom) so for architecture you might want to look at primes... For nature shots the distortions are negligable 95% of the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielleetaylor Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 <p><em>Generally speaking, full frame sensors are recommended for landscapes over crop sensors, given their greater inherent depths of field and ability to render finer detail. </em></p> <p>There is no significant difference between Canon's 21 MP 35mm sensor and Canon's 18 MP APS-C sensor at low to mid ISO. One will render just as much fine detail as the other, all other factors being equal. Also, 35mm sensors do not yield greater DoF, but less for a given aperture. (Though I consider this inconsequential when shooting for greater DoF. Diffraction is the limiting factor for either, and the impact of diffraction is essentially the same for all formats for a given FoV and DoF.)</p> <p><em>If you're shooting primarily from a tripod, I'd go for a refurbished original 5D, and a used 17-40.</em></p> <p>This will yield a moderate improvement as the 17-40L is a sharper lens than the Tamron. A greater improvement could be achieved by moving to a T2i or 60D and the 15-85 or 17-55. (I'm recommending that because Mark doesn't seem to favor the ultra wide end of his current zoom. If he did, a Tokina 11-16 would be the ticket.) And yes, the extra 6 MP matters in landscape work, especially when rendering foliage or printing big.</p> <p>I'm not sure if that would be in his budget, but it would be the better system. If he can't upgrade both at the same time...given that he does not use the ultra wide end very much I would recommend one of the two lenses above.</p> <p>Neither the 12 MP sensor nor the Tamron are bad, so huge improvements should not be expected after upgrading either.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mweir2007 Posted June 19, 2011 Author Share Posted June 19, 2011 <p>Matthijs, Michael and Daniel:<br> Again thank you for your advice, especially with alternative lenses. I will do some homework and make a decision based on all the information I've been given</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthias_meixner2 Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 <p>Which quality issues do you have with your current equipment?<br> - Noise, slow image rate, bad color, bad dynamic range => update your camera<br> - Lacking sharpness, chromatic aberration, image distortion, flare => update your lens</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now