Printable View
Hey thanks for reading my post. I have a Canon Rebel T2i and I want to upgrade, but I am not sure what would be the better option in the long run. Here is what I am torn between:
Replace the T2i (with stock lens) to a Canon 7D with the stock lens
Keep the T2i and buy a 18-200 f2.8 lens
So what I am really asking is, what is the smarter upgrade? I know its a tough answer, but I am looking for a better quality photo (yeah I know thats what they all say lol)
general speaking IMO, stick with your T2i if your main shots are not for fast moving objects(bird/wildlife/sports...)
Hey jrapa86, I am in agreement with JJphoto. Glass (lens) lasts forever and the image quality from the T2i should be great. Assuming you are willing to spend the cost of a 7D, that leaves a lot of room for shopping, so consider buying an L-series lens (most will cost more than the T2i). You won
Perfect. Thanks guys I really appreciate it. I
I
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrapa86
I've not heard of an 18-200mm f/2.8 lens... Do you mean the EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS lens? If so, although that has a broader focal range than the kit lens, optically it's only a small step up. But the cost of a 7D would get you excellent lenses in that range. For example, one combo might be the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS (IMO, that's the best general purpose zoom for a crop body) and the EF 70-200mm f/4L.
EDIT: looks like Brant and I were posting the same thing at the same time...
My apologies on that: I got the lenses confused. I meant to say 18-200 f/3.5-5.6. My primary goal is to upgrade the IQ, my budget is ~$1,500 give or take a few hundred. Given I go lower than my projected budget I was going to put in the extra $$ into maybe a flash. Hands down, I want to get the best possible IQ out of my T2i. I
The confusion on lenses is universal when we all started out. So don
Quote:
Originally Posted by JraPA86
In general, not a bad approach. A wider aperture doesn't always mean better IQ, since some lenses are not terribly sharp when shot wide open (e.g. the 50mm f/1.4 or 35mm f/2). But a wider aperture (lower f-number) means more light gets in, and a thinner DoF, so that can add flexibility to your picture taking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JraPA86
The optical quality of those two lenses is similar - both excellent. The trade-off is that the 17-55mm has a wider aperture, so will be better for low light shooting and portraits, whereas the 15-85mm has a broader focal length range but a slower aperture (meaning you'll likely need a flash indoors). The broader zoom range also means a bit more barrel distortion at the wide end than the 17-55mm. So, like most lens choices, it comes down to what your needs are. If you'll mostly be shooting outdoors in good light, the 15-85mm may be the better choice; for indoor shots, the 17-55mm may be better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JraPA86
When use on the same crop body, the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 actually delivers slightly better optical quality than the 24-70mm f/2.8L. Also, the 17-55mm has image stabilization, which can be a big help for many situations (although not for moving subjects). The other consideration with the 24-70mm is that on a 1.6x crop body, 24mm isn't even wide angle, it's at the wide end of the 'normal' focal length range. To me, a general purpose zoom should cover wide angle to short telephoto. Honestly, I'd recommend the 17-55mm over the 24-70mm, unless you're planning to buy a FF body in the immediate future (even if you think you might get a FF body 'someday' you'd be better off with the 17-55mm now...).
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
It definitely looks like I am going for the 17-55mm f/2.8 lens. Based on my needs and the way it sounds this would be the better choice for me. I do plan on buying a FF maybe in a year to a year and a half from now. I'll be taking many photos in the meantime. Your advice is definitely solid so I'm going for it!
In the meantime I have one more question:
When looking at a lens sometimes they say "35mm equivalent". What exactly does that mean? Also what is the difference between an EF zoom lens vs. EF telephoto zoom lens?. I'm asking because I cannot seem to understand the difference between these two lenses other than the $1000 difference (I was originally going for one of these but realized that 70-200 is not smart for general purpose for obvious reasons):
<h3 id="name_1218182821141" class="name"][url="http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Canon+-+EF+70-200mm+f/2.8L+Telephoto+Zoom+Lens+for+Most+Canon+Digital+SL R+Cameras/9839236.p?id=1218182821141&skuId=9839236]Canon - EF 70-200mm f/2.8L Telephoto Zoom Lens for Most Canon Digital SLR Cameras[/url]</h3>
<h3 id="name_1218057059470" class="name"]Canon - EF 70-200mm f/2.8 USM Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras</h3>
OFF TOPIC:
Neuroanatomist, I was looking at your bio on this website and checked out some of your pics. They are awesome! But also Im a physician assistant and a huge immunology buff, i'm looking to soon be giving medical immunology lectures aside from working internal medicine. Thats great stuff! I'm actually looking into getting into microscopy photo taking/creative medical photo taking, I believe that you can turn the medical world into art and there's not enough of it! I have a 400x microscope with a third eyepiece on the top; looking for an adaptor for it so I can attach my camera to it so I can take pictures of different slides.