Better Upgrade? 50D or an L?

[realityinabox]

So I got into photography a few years ago by buying a Rebel XT and a Sigma 28-70 f/2.8 lens. I am starting to feel the limitations of my current setup, so I am looking to spend ~$1200 to possibly upgrade.





Do you think getting a 50D w/ the stock lens, or keeping the Rebel XT and getting an L (probably the 24(?)-105 f/4 IS) would be a better upgrade?





I shoot almost anything under the sun right now, mostly landscapes, but am moving more into portraits, etc, so I need a pretty versitile setup. Any thoughts?d

[crystalshadow]

I'd say it depends on what kind of flexibility you're looking for and what about your current setupannoyingyou the most. Going to a 50D will give you a bunch more resolution, faster response and double your current framerate. A 24-105 f/4 IS is in my opinion on of the mostversatilelenses canon makes and does almost anything decently well. Unless you need the resolution or speed out of the camera I'd go w/ new glass. That will give you more range, sharper pictures, and since the 24-105 is great wide open you can shoot still subjects in lower light thank to the IS.


My $0.02

[piiooo]

I am starting to feel the limitations of my current setup


What limitations of your current setup do you start noticing?

[Jarhead5811]

Glass first, lighting second andbody eventually.

[hotsecretary]

Agreed with the above, all my Photographer friends pointed me in this direction and it makes more and more sense.


But my one friend personally said flash first, especially if you're taking any photos at night, indoors, etc.. flash is very useful and getting a great picture. I personally go the L then the flash, but I understood his point.


Just purchased my 70-200 2.8 IS, next is either the 16-35 or 24-70 to complete the Trinity of the Zooms ;) Then get a new body .. then blow the extra earnings on a few primes :)



In my case, I was thinking of going to the 5DII from the 40D.. as I wanted to make the FF jump, but that's after one more L purchase, here's hoping the price on the 5DII drops soon!

[realityinabox]

The biggest limitation I have been noticing is just a general lack of sharpness in my photos. My main concern about moving to an L with the XT is whether that body would benefit that greatly from the upgrade to an L. I don't like the idea of getting an L and having it be only a marginal improvement over my current setup due to the older body.


As to the idea of a flash, I actually did just order a 580exII. Should be in on monday :)

[matrixman45054]

I was worried about the same thing a while back. Like you, I also use the XT. At the time, I sort of figured that a Rebel body was designed to only handle non-L lenses and were somewhat out of their league when they had an L mounted to them. After that I decided to rent a 24-105L when I took a trip to Italy and was VERY impressed by the sharpness. I was actually surprised that my little XT could crank out pictures as sharp as that. Now I have a 70-200 2.8 IS and am even more impressed :) If sharpness is a concern of yours, the 24-105 will put you at ease.


~mike~

[Scott]

Good glass is the way to go and you will notice an improvement, but the extra the 50D has to offfer will be even better. I have the 50D with the 24 - 105 f/4 IS and couldn't be happier, they are sharp, very very sharp. If you do go for the kit lens though, as I did, stay away from the ef-s 18 - 200. With portrait work especially it has a very limited usable focal range, 45 - 85mm at f/8 is the sharpest range I found with this lens, anything outside this makes the photos to soft or blurry even. Hope this helps.

[Daniel Browning]

Do you think getting a 50D w/ the stock lens, or keeping the Rebel XT and getting an L (probably the 24(?)-105 f/4 IS) would be a better upgrade?


I would echo the other advice to consider lenses and flash first. You might also consider a mixed option: the 500D and Tamron 17-50 together for $1180. That will blow the socks off the 50D+kit and it will also blow the socks off the 350D+24-105. I don't like the smaller xxxD bodies, though; I much prefer xxD.

[lculpin]

Lens first, if for no other reason than that the 50D is nearing the end of it's product cycle and will (should) be cheaper in say 4-5 months :P

[peety3]

So I got into photography a few years ago by buying a Rebel XT and a Sigma 28-70 f/2.8 lens. I am starting to feel the limitations of my current setup, so I am looking to spend ~$1200 to possibly upgrade.





Put an 85mm f/1.2L on the front of that camera just for 30 minutes, and you'll see the "limitations" of that camera disappear.


When my 1D Mark III went in the shop (and stayed there...practically), I borrowed a friend's 85/1.2. My girlfriend's 40D was going (that was a given, but it would have been the #2 camera, not #1 originally), and the Rebel got dusted off. 16-35/2.8 on the 40D, 85/1.2 on the Rebel, and I had a rather capable setup for indoor shooting. I prefer the 16-35 on my 1D3 and the 85L on her 40D, but the Rebel showed what it could do quite well that week.

[Sinh Nhut Nguyen]

Always invest in good glass, bodies come and go, glass stay with you for a long time.

[Oren]

Hey Nate,


Yes bodies come and go, but does it mean you should be stuck with the current body you've got for the rest of your life?


For the original poster, don't get confused, I'm not suggesting that you invest in the body and I'm not suggesting the opposite either. It's a hard decision to make and you'll have to decide eventually. I just wanted to share my thought regarding the well known "invest in good glass". While I DO agree with the "invest in good glass" thingy, I also know that sometimes you need to invest in good body as well [:D]


If you are really on a budget and this purchase is going to be your last for a long long time, and image quality is the most important thing to you, then Nate is so damn right - get the glass without thinking twice. If that's not the case then you'll have to make the hard decision on your own I guess.


Another thing to take into account is the up and coming end of the 50D. We all know it'll probably get replaced by a new 60D soon and when that happens, the 50D price will probably go down (that's exactly what happened to the 40D when the 50D came out). So I suggest that you wait for a while, maybe you'll find a good deal on a used 40D when that happens.

[Jon Ruyle]

Put an 85mm f/1.2L on the front of that camera just for 30 minutes, and you'll see the "limitations" of that camera disappear.


Were you shooting still things or moving things, peety3?


I find that accurate autofocus is critical when using fast lenses and taking pictures of moving objects. Is the rebel autofocus good enough? I'm not asserting that it isn't, mind you... just asking. And since my narrow dof applications usually involve candid shots of people, I wouldn't spend so much money on such a fast lens for a rebel unless I knew.


One more thing to think about: while I agree with the "glass over body" philosophy in general, a full frame body makes long slow lenses act like more expensive short fast ones. Thus in some cases one can actually save money by going full frame. For example, the 135mm f/2 acts like the 85mm f/1.2 on a 1.6fovcf body, and sells for $1000 less. So personally, I wouldn't pay a huge premium for a bunch of the fastest lenses possible if I was going to use them on a 1.6 fovcf body.


Umm.. sorry if I've diverged from realityinabox's question, [:)] which was 50D or a 24-105 f/4. I advise more money on lens, less on body in this case (and in most cases).

[Dallasphotog]

Get the glass. My daughter slaps the EF24-70mm F/2.8 L USM and the EF70-200mm F/2.8 L IS USM on the Canon Rebel XT all the time and takes great pictures.The XT is plenty capable of exploiting the advantages of L glass.


The XT is our fourth body (5DMKII, 1D MKII, XTi & XT) and itgets used every week.

[Colin]

The XT has higher pixel density than my 5D.


I got some ridiculously good images with my XT and 16-35 f/2.8L and 70-200 f/2.8 IS L


I personally like the feel and build a lot better on the xxD bodies. Good for dropping, high frame rates, etc., but aside from ISO 1600, and to some degree ISO 800, I never noticed the image quality limitations of my XT beyond high ISO noise.


if your driving motivation on a body is image quality, go full frame with either a 5D or a 5D2. Then you're fully exploiting the resolution of an EF lens, and have an effectively 'faster' body/lens combination.

[peety3]

Put an 85mm f/1.2L on the front of that camera just for 30 minutes, and you'll see the "limitations" of that camera disappear.





Were you shooting still things or moving things, peety3?


I find that accurate autofocus is critical when using fast lenses and taking pictures of moving objects. Is the rebel autofocus good enough? I'm not asserting that it isn't, mind you... just asking. And since my narrow dof applications usually involve candid shots of people, I wouldn't spend so much money on such a fast lens for a rebel unless I knew.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





I was shooting a band, bowling lanes, and a jazz band (three consecutive nights). The 85/1.2 is such a slow focusing lens that the Rebel certainly can keep up with the lens, and performed quite well (except for bowling candids, where the lens was too slow to focus, and it wasn't the Rebel at fault).

[Oren]

and it wasn't the Rebel at fault
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





I've always wondered - how can you tell which one's fault it is, the lens or the camera?

[DustyLBottoms]

Depends on which one's cheaper. ;)

[mattsartin]

Depends on which one's cheaper. ;)
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





simple, but logical [:D]

[peety3]

and it wasn't the Rebel at fault
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





I've always wondered - how can you tell which one's fault it is, the lens or the camera?
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





I'm guessing that you've never tried the 85/1.2. It might take a full two seconds or so for that lens to run the length of its focus range, as seven of the eight pieces of glass move for focusing. Although I feel like my different cameras can focus my 70-200/2.8IS at different speeds, there's no such difference on the 85/1.2. On one hand, I'd suggest trying the 85/1.2 sometime (local camera store or a rental), but on the other hand I'd recommend staying far, far away from it unless/until you're ready to buy it. It's a very addictive lens!

[Oren]

No, I've never tried it and I don't think I'll get a chance any time soon - but if it's such a slow lens there is no way I'll want to buy it... actually, at $1899 there's no way I'd ever be ready to buy it [:P]

[Jon Ruyle]

It might take a full two seconds or so for that lens to run the length of its focus range, as seven of the eight pieces of glass move for focusing.


Are you talking about the 85mm f/1.2 II or the original version? I knew the 85 f/1.2 II was slow, but didn't know it was *that* slow. As you can tell, I've never used the lens either. Maybe one day...

[Colin]

I haven't timed it, but it's not something for moving objects...