Help needed on Body upgrade and/or Glass choice

[warrens]

Hi All, thanks in advance for any help you send my way. I'll try to be as quick as possible explaining my situation. I'm a new DSLR owner (6months) I tentatively entered the realm before an extended trip to asia, and so (with a tinge of regret) bot an XTi kit. I quickly started to understand the nuances and limitations of the kit lens but overall was happy with the cameras performance. Now I find myself a) obsessed with upgrading my system b) in analysis paralysis about what to do!!! So this leads me to the 2 questions I have, and I say this knowing that a consumer grade camera is fine for me (as of now).My current kit consists of the XTi 18-55 and the EFS 55-250. So.....


1) Do I upgrade the XTi to say the T1i and then trade in the 55-250 for something else (thinking the 18-200) and maybe a fixed wide?


2) Is that upgrade unnecessary and should I just get the new lenses and be done with it? Am I really going to notice some better quality shots coming out of the T1i (i know most have not had a chance to really get their hands on it)


3) What about the Tamron 17-270 or some less expensive options that may be sufficient for my level of sophistication.


As far as my uses I live in NYC so the urban landscape provides me with ample opps for interesting shots, I also travel 2x a year to reasonably beautiful locales!


Thanks Again for the help, I have been losing sleep at night, the old "analysis paralysis" has kicked in full force!!!

[alexniedra]

Aha! Photography is no longer the "good, cheap" hobby that we all thought it to be...


My take: Glass. Your Xti will shine with quality optics. Think about it: You can get a 17-40 L for the same price as a T1i [:)]

[areijnders]

Yes, I agree! A new lens will make all the difference, the camera is just fine. Not too familiar with the lenses you mentioned so I can't make any recommendations. You may want to consider picking up a collection of prime lenses too for the same money, which are usually pretty cost effective and produce beautiful sharp images. Of course, you loose the flexibility of zoom, something I use too much to go without!

[Dann Thombs]

<span style="font-size: small; font-family: Times New Roman;"]Another vote for glass. Get a quality lens and you will see much better clarity than with another body. Especially if it's only going from 400D to the 500D. The jump isn't all that huge.

[peety3]

If it was me, none of the lenses you list (18-55, 55-250, 18-200, 18-270) would be in my bag. The 18-200 and 18-270 lenses are considered "superzooms" because of their 10x or greater zoom. Those are always "compromise" lenses. If your travel leads you to a need to minimize lens changes, then maybe the 18-270.


That said, I'd be looking to trade out the 55-250, and bring in one or more of the following: 17-40/4, 50/1.8 or 50/1.4, 85/1.8, 70-300 IS or perhaps one of the 70-200 choices. I've used the 50/1.8 and the 85/1.2 (though not the 85/1.8) on the XTi, and the camera takes on a whole new identity.


Remember, rental is always an option (especially in NYC). Swing by B&amp;H and try some of these choices, then rent the ones that stand out, and buy the one (or two) that's highest on the list. We tried the 16-35I (twice), then the 17-55EFS and the 17-40 before settling on the 16-35II, and I'm glad we tried them all.

[Daniel Browning]

I suggest focusing your money on the one thing that will affect your photography the most. If you're not sure what it is, then don't buy until you've learned it. None of us can tell you what it is because we are not you and don't take the same shots you do. We can only tell you what limited us and what we purchased to improve it.


For example, if you find that changing lenses is the single worst thing to affect your photography, then the best choice would be to upgrade to a superzoom like the 18-200. On the other hand, if you don't mind changing lenses, but find that the f-number (e.g. f/5.6) of your current lenses is too narrow to get the depth of field you desire, you might consider upgrading to a lens with a wider f-number.


EDIT: Or perhaps the one thing that affects your photography the most is something related to the camera body. Live view, for me, is an absolutely critical and gamechanging feature for critical focus. If I had your lenses, I would upgrade the body immediately. But there are many folks who never use that feature. So every one is different.

[mpphoto12]

I suggest saving for a telephoto like the 70-200s or the 24-70 or maybe 24-105. I just got a 70-200 and one of the best decisions so far! Happy shooting

[warrens]

First off, thanks to everyone for responding my query. The vote seems to be to go with lenses instead, which is what I was thinking but glad to have confirmed. After all, I can get some new lenses and when the time is right I always have the option to get a new body. Having said that, there are a couple of things I can clarify in order to get to the bottom of this.


a) I am new to this so having multiple lenses even 2 is totally new to me, the idea of carrying an extra piece of hardware on my as of now in my best estimation is unlikely.... this is what led me to list the 18-200 and the 18-270 tamron


b) The vast majority of use would come during my travels, for example in town I'll snap 25-75 shots on a given weekend, but on vacation we're talking hundreds/day (I'm sure this is pretty standard for most on this forum)


So long and short flexibility is definitely important! which is what led me to throw out the superzooms BUT i know i'm sacrificing some IQ with those products. In general i'd say I have a preference towards taking wide-angle shots


So... sorry for going on and on, what's my best bet ????

[mattsartin]

Bryan seems to hold the EF-S 19-200 in high regard for a consumer zoom and especially for that broad of a range so that seems like a good option. if i recall correctly, popular photography liked the tamron 18-270. i don't have experience with either, but as far as fixed lenses, i highly reecommend a 50mm either f/1.8 or f/1.4 depending i=on your budget. both are excellent, very sharp, very fast lenses.

[clemmb]

I agree with keeping the XTi. I used an XTi for weddings for a couple of years. I have produced some stunning 16x20s. If you can stretch your budget to a 24-105L it is a supper lens but may not be wide enough for you. The first suggestion above may be best for you. The 17-40 L gets you into L series glass.


Another possibility would be the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 which is in Bryan's lense suggestion list and add a prime.


Look forward to seeing some of your travel shots posted here.


Mark

[Sinh Nhut Nguyen]

Always invest in good glass, camera bodies come and go. Read Bryan's lens recommendation page and you'll find plenty of info there.

[Mark Elberson]

One caveat regarding the Tamron AF18-270mm/3.5-6.3 is the 6.3 max aperture which starts at only 200mm which in turn affects auto focus...among other things.


/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.26.13/Tamron-AF18_2D00_270mm.jpg


Quote from dpreview.com :
<p class="H3-ruler"]"The 18-270mm VC uses a small micro-motor for autofocus, and this is the weakest point of the design. It feels rather sluggish when compared to either Nikon or Canon's 18-200mm lenses, although to be fair the motor is at least reasonably quiet (although not silent like the Nikon's AF-S motor). On the bodies used for testing (Nikon D300 and D90) AF performance was relatively slow and sometimes extremely indecisive, especially at telephoto, presumably hindered by that slow maximum aperture (most autofocus systems are only specified to work reliably with lenses that are F5.6 or brighter). "

[David Selby]

I do not recommend purchasing a 17-40 EF L if you are looking to increase the quality of your photos on your XTi.... I would look at the 24-70 2.8 or 24-105 the 17-40 just isn't that sharp or impressive really...





also the 70-200 2.8 is amazing and one of my preferred lenses.

[warrens]

Thanks so much for all the advice. I've kept it in consideration and I've made some headway although, I wouldn't say I'm quite there....


I've decided that since the lens I'll be purchasing is going to be used primarily for travel and walk-around, I'm best served buying a superzoom. Even with the IQ issues etc... (I will be buying a prime in the near-term prob between 28 - 50) but in the meantime I think an 18-200 is a good thing to have. So the debate then is:


1) Canon EF-S 18-200 IS


2) Tamron 18-270 (which some of you have already remarked has some focus issues)


3) Sigma 18-200 OS (there is also an 18-250 that just came out)


Any thoughts? I've read some interesting reviews on the sigma (not the 250, no reviews out yet) and the price point is certainly attractive!


Thanks!

[peety3]

3) Sigma 18-200 OS (there is also an 18-250 that just came out)


Any thoughts? I've read some interesting reviews on the sigma (not the 250, no reviews out yet) and the price point is certainly attractive!





Personally, I'd stay away from Sigma, period. I rent occasionally from Lens Rentals, and Sigma's quality control appears to have gotten so bad that the LensRentals technicians have created a new verb: "Sigma'd". As much as I hate the rampant misuse of apostrophes in our country, this one seems to fit. For one model lens, I think it was 4 of the 9 that LensRentals bought had to go in for repairs upon purchase, and Sigma even billed LensRentals for some of those repairs because they were "damaged by the user". They've had to rescind their usual guarantee (make a two-week or longer rental reservation that's at least two weeks in the future, and we'll buy a copy if we have to) on Sigma lenses because they had no way to be sure they could get a working copy in two weeks!

[Daniel Browning]

So the debate then is:


1) Canon EF-S 18-200 IS


2) Tamron 18-270 (which some of you have already remarked has some focus issues)


3) Sigma 18-200 OS (there is also an 18-250 that just came out)





If you're concerned about price or longer reach, the Tamron and Sigma are worth considering. I don't know how well they perform optically, but I would be very surprised if they are better than the Canon. They also tend to have poorer autofocus performance.


I suggest going with the Canon.