How to spend my next $1k or $2k??? - a little help please.

As a little intro: I shoot mostly hockey games, vacations, buildings, and hiking. I have been reasonably happy with what I have and have managed to get some photos that I'm really happy with over the years. However, most of my equipment is starting to age and I'm thinking it's time to add to the fleet or upgrade. The problem is I'm not made of money and my wish list is longer than my checkbook so I'm wondering where to put my next investment.

So this is what I have:
Rebel XT D350 with grip (It's just too small without the grip) (slight edit to add D350 and 8MP, CF memory, 3 fps shooting)
EF-S 17-85 IS USM
EF 50 1.8
Sigma 70-200 2.8 USM (Very old one without OS or Macro)
Sigma 2x extender

What I'm thinking about:
EF-S 10-22 (Something new that would give me a perspective I don't have)
60D (Higher ISO, better images, faster burst rate, video)
EF 70-200 IS (Image stabilization, this might be outside the budget)

I have also had on the list and although not excluded they have fallen to the still in the hunt category:
EF-S 17-55 2.8 (Faster but shorter than what I have)
EF-S 15-85 (very nice, but almost on top of what I have)
EF 28 1.8 (Seems like something I might pick up later, or possibly the 2.8 IS)
EF 24-105 4.0 L (I just don't know)
7D (Very nice, but do I want to spend the extra over the 60D)

I'm also open to suggestions of other options. I just was hoping to talk this one out loud.

I'd ask what you find the main limitations are with your current set-up for what you shoot.

I'd definitely recommend the 17-55mm f/2.8 over your normal lens. The jump from 55 to 70 for your Sigma isn't huge, and you could always bridge it with the 60mm macro in the future if you wanted?

I'd go with the f/2.8 over the 15-85mm pure for the f-stops if you can afford it. I have the 15-85mm and whilst it's a lovely lens, I do wish I had something faster sometimes, more so than I use 85mm? I'm not sure.

Wow, that's a great question.

I started shooting RAW exclusively a few years ago and processing them myself. I'm much happier with the results that way, but the Rebel XT only gets 4 RAW's in a burst. When I shoot hockey games that just doesn't work, so I'm back to jpg. I also am less than thrilled with the IQ at 1600 and even 800. But often I find I'm stuck there because of lighting, both at hockey and otherwise. Also, I have been trying to fake wide by doing panos, but have been unhappy with the results and wish I could get wider. I worry about the IQ of the sigma and it can be temperamental to use.

That's four limitations :D

Is that RAW issue dependant on SD card? I just bought a couple of Sandisk >95mb/s 8GB cards for £20 each and they have improved (possibly placebo-like effect) my burst duration.

I don't know enough about the ISO improvements, but I know I can shoot at 1600 with my 60D as long as I don't plan on cropping too heavily. And I can go much higher if I'm shooting street stuff and going to go high contrast B&W.

But looking at that, I'd go for either a camera or a telephoto upgrade, and get a tripod (if you don't already) to aid in the panos.

But there are far better advice givers here. Listen to them :D

The 60D does have a faster burst than the XTI, however not much faster due to the MP size. The 7D would be the best for your sports shots if that's really important to you. I have no experience shooting sports, so I won't suggest anything in that area.

I do have the Canon EF-S 10-22 lens, and it's great for the wide angle shots. I'll post a few here to show you what I do with it:

This is at 17mm:
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7183/6...3b4dac854b.jpg
Leonard's Mills by James-Photos-82, on Flickr

10mm:
http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6177/6...cd129cbeff.jpg
Moss Glenn Falls, Granville, VT by James-Photos-82, on Flickr

14mm:
http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6132/5...1054840467.jpg
Marshall Point Lighthouse by James-Photos-82, on Flickr

10mm:
http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6129/5...83d0080c80.jpg
Pemaquid Point Lightouse by James-Photos-82, on Flickr

This is at 28mm, same spot, so you can see how much it makes a difference:
http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6022/5...1f526841a9.jpg
Pemaquid Point Lightouse by James-Photos-82, on Flickr

In my very limited experience with the 24-105 (I'm renting it, and this is day 2 [stuck at work right now]); it's an excellent outdoor lens where only a medium zoom range is needed, I've yet to use it inside yet but will tonight.

Judging by your user name and what you've posted so far, including the order you listed what you shoot, it looks like having the ability to shoot hockey is important to you.

I presently have a 60D and a 70-200 2.8 IS II and use it for hockey and ringette and as such shoot in poor lighting conditions, minus one rink that's not bad. In order to try and get a proper exposure I shoot at 3200 ISO and occasionally at 4000 ISO (I try to avoid the 4000, but sometimes its necessary in really dark holes), and I shoot wide open at 2.8, 1/500. Even then I usually have to push my exposures 1/2-3/4 stops in Lightroom. Shooting at 1600 ISO would be great, as the 60D is not bad there. 3200 certainly isn't perfect with the 60D (this is why I'm upgrading to a full frame in the near future) but with noise reduction in post 3200 is okay (depending on your needs), plus shooting on a white ice background and often white uniforms is forgiving in how noise appears in the images I find. Regardless, I'm sure the 60Ds ISO would be better than the XT. Because of my need to push my images so much in post processing, I too shoot in RAW and the 60D gets about 16 RAW shots in a burst. (Get a fast SD card and it'll cut down on the refresh time). I use the center AF focus point and it works pretty good with the AI Servo, although my 70-200 really helps with that.

So, my two cents are buy a 60D. Actually, if I were you I might hold out until the start of next season to see if Canon releases the 70D between now and next fall (unless of course you shoot hockey in the spring/summer), just because the way Canon is pushing low light ISO in their new 1D X and 5D III, there might be some trickle down to the 70D.

Then if you are going to be shooting hockey or sports in general for years to come (young kids), start saving for the Canon 70-200 2.8. I bought the 70-200 2.8 IS II as I like to have the ability to shoot portrait shots in low light hand held, but if you are mainly going to use the 70-200 for hockey or if you don't mind not being able to shoot at slow shutter speeds in low light without a tripod, you don't need the IS and you'd save a $1000.

If hockey is really important to you(since it's even in your name;)) I would suggest the following:

- Better camera body: A 60D or 7D is nice, but it costs quite a bit. A (second hand) 50D is what I would be looking at. You could even take video with it if you want with the latest magic lantern software. If video is a more important feature to you, go for a 60D/7D.
- Better lens: go for a Canon 70-200 in either F4 or F2.8 with or without IS. You won't regret it a single second. If the hockey(ice??)field is the same size as the figure skating field. You're all set with a good 70-200. Perfect lens for it. It's also perfect for hiking, holidays, landscapes etc.

If your priorities are more holiday/hiking orientated I would suggest a better general lens(random order, they are all good + better than your 17-85):
- Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS USM
- Canon 24-105 F4L IS USM
- Canon 24-70 F2.8L USM
- Canon 17-40 F4L USM
- Tamron 17-50 F2.8 (VC or non VC)

The Tamron is the cheapest compared to the others, but definitely delivers great image-quality. It has the best price/quality as far as I'm concerned.

Good luck. And remember that when upgrading your camera you would also need CF-cards.

-Jan-

What about Canon refurbed items?...I had great luck with a refurbed 1DMKIII a few years ago.

http://shop.usa.canon.com/webapp/wcs...0051_260463_-1 a refurbed 7D for $1359

http://shop.usa.canon.com/webapp/wcs...0051_164426_-1 a refurbed 17-55mm f/2.8 for $1099

Thanks for the great responses so far. And yes, I do shoot a fair amount of hockey, my wife plays and it gives me something to do while she is playing and the women she plays with always get a bang out of seeing the pictures. I have attached a few pictures from a recent game I took photos at as examples of the things I'm trying to solve. First off from a lighting perspective apparently lighting is a little better here in MN rinks than where you're at bigblue1ca. This is about average for lighting conditions that I have seen maybe a third stop higher than normal. To help reduce the number of frames where the camera picks exposure poorly I have gone to manually setting exposure during warm-ups and for this rink 1/500 f/3.2 ISO 1600 got me these. I also preset the WB using an expo disk so that all that is left to do in PP is to crop. So far this has netted me many more keepers. I have tried to do sharpening and noise reduction, but starting with jpgs only gets you so far. Looking at the results they are always a bit softer than I want and I have some ugly noise in bands that looks like it got printed on a cheap inkjet printer. I attribute the softness to the Sigma and the noise to the Rebel XT. Though it could be that the two resolution of the Rebel XT is also hurting.
So far the suggestions are all good and it is helping as I have gotten further in my process in a few comments here than I did in months of thinking this over by myself. Some of the things that are still hanging out there:
I worry about the 70-200 f/4.0, not that it's not a good lense, but given that I often am shooting in the 2.8-3.5 range that I won't be able to get the shots I am now.
I wonder what kinds of pictures I could get with a wider lense, I love the examples that Photog82 put up and the many others I have seen. I have recently acquired a tripod so maybe it's worth going back and trying the panos again.
I also worry that no matter what camera I pick the Sigma will always be soft.

Maybe I should rent some of this stuff and see how it goes.

And as this post reaches absurd length. I have 400x 8GB CF cards now they help with the buffering on the bursts, but that only moves the RAW bursts from 4 to about 4 1/4 before I hit the buffer limit. The cards help more with JPG, maybe two to three extra shots over the rated number before I hit the big slow down.
I have been on the fence on the 24-105, I like the IQ I have seen, but on a crop body I worry about the lack on the wide angle end of things. Also, I am pretty happy with the IQ and range of the 17-85 I have.

Attachment 646

Attachment 647

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joel Eade

What about Canon refurbed items?...I had great luck with a refurbed 1DMKIII a few years ago.

http://shop.usa.canon.com/webapp/wcs...0051_260463_-1 a refurbed 7D for $1359

http://shop.usa.canon.com/webapp/wcs...0051_164426_-1 a refurbed 17-55mm f/2.8 for $1099

---

This is a good idea, any clue as to what the warranty would be on these? Do you still get the normal warranty?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MNHockey

To help reduce the number of frames where the camera picks exposure poorly I have gone to manually setting exposure during warm-ups and for this rink 1/500 f/3.2 ISO 1600 got me these. I also preset the WB using an expo disk so that all that is left to do in PP is to crop.

---

Those settings are actually not that bad. The ice-track I shot at about 3 weeks ago is fully covered. It does however have some sort of tent over the track and it seems to be letting in just a little bit of light. I could manage to get 1/1000 F4 ISO-3200. I have also done a shoot in open air at night which was a complete different story. If you want to see, here are my latest shots at the ice-track.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MNHockey

I attribute the softness to the Sigma and the noise to the Rebel XT. Though it could be that the two resolution of the Rebel XT is also hurting.
I also worry that no matter what camera I pick the Sigma will always be soft.

---

The noise is definitely the camera. The sharpness is not necessarily the Sigma's fault. Although the Sigma will probably get significantly better stopped down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MNHockey

I worry about the 70-200 f/4.0, not that it's not a good lense, but given that I often am shooting in the 2.8-3.5 range that I won't be able to get the shots I am now.

---

I am using the 5D2 and 70-200 F4L IS for these shots. Personally I'd rather have the f2.8 lens for these indoors things. But I rarely do this kind of photography so I can live with F4.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MNHockey

I have been on the fence on the 24-105, I like the IQ I have seen, but on a crop body I worry about the lack on the wide angle end of things. Also, I am pretty happy with the IQ and range of the 17-85 I have.

---

If you're happy with the 17-85, just go with it and put your money in the places where you can benefit the most.

Apart from the sharpness of your Sigma and the noise of the 350D. You will notice a major impact when buying a faster body. 40D and upwards. The lag between pressing the shutter, auto-focus and the actual making of the photo will decrease quite a bit and that is very noticeable in sports-photography.

And the best thing about this all. You don't have to justify all the expenses to your wife. She seems to like your hobby;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MNHockey

This is a good idea, any clue as to what the warranty would be on these? Do you still get the normal warranty?

---

1 Year limited warranty according to "what's in the box?" section. (at least for the lens)

Hi, I also shoot a lot of hockey. I use the 7D and I'd say it's perfect for it. (I suppose the 1D4 is even better, but that's out of my budget anyway.)

Regarding lenses I mainly use either 70-200 f/4 (in really well lit arenas) or otherwise 85/1.8. I've never tried 60D but my guess is that it's a lot more like the 7D than your current rebel. I'm sure 60D will work great for hockey (as well as just about any other type of photography).

(To be honest, f/4 is not very good for hockey although useable. As mentioned I use it in really well lit arenas and then the typical setting can be ISO5000 - f/4 - 1/800. See the small sample shot below that were shot with these settings.)

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7208/6...49a4582f_z.jpg

My budget advice would be to go for a really fast lens and a 60D. Choose between 85/1.8 or 100/2 - both are great for many indoor events. I beleive this would fit your 1-2k budget. If you are willing to spend a lot, the 7D paired with a 70-200/2.8 IS II would be difficult to beat.

Quote:

---

7D (Very nice, but do I want to spend the extra over the 60D)

---

Yes, yes, yes----Though I have not used the 60D, I was the proud owner of the 50D.......and the improvement in my photos jumped a great deal when I purchased teh 7D. I know the general idea is to get good glass first, but I think in your case, the 7D would be would be a good investment. I am probably the outsider on recommendations for you, but the 7D really did make a huge difference for me. It was probably the single best upgrade that I have made.

I agree with cls on the f/4 vs. f/2.8. As for the 7D vs. 60D, the 7D's AF system is very good, but you pay more for it, whereas the 60D's is more basic. But, I've got around 15 games and thousands of images under my belt this season and I've managed okay with the 60D's AF; I'm sure if I had a 7D my keeper rate would have been higher though. As for image quality and noise, by all reports the 60D and 7D are very close, with the edge going to the 7D.

I had a look at your pictures and they look good, except they are under exposed between 3/4-1 stop (causing the whites to look grey), I'm only posting the one as an example, but the other image is the same. When I'm shooting hockey, I shoot in manual and over exposure by +1.3-1.6 to compensate for how the camera (and even then I still have to push in LR, thus why I want a camera I can shoot at 6400 or 12800) wants to take the white ice and make it grey.

Here's your original followed by a little PP in Lightroom:

Attachment 648

Attachment 649

Thanks for the great responses and especially to bigblue1ca. I looked at those pictures for hours and thought they were fine and then you make one little change and it makes a world of difference. This has been very helpful for me to talk this through.

No problem MNHockey, happy to have helped. One thing I forgot to mention, because there is so much white in hockey shots, make sure you watch your histogram both on your camera and in Lightroom. If you look at the histogram for your original image versus the one I edited in LR, you'll note the histogram in my image is further to the right, representing that there are more whites in the image. (Not sure how much you know about histograms, but the basics are that the right of a histogram represents the whites, the left - blacks, and the middle - greys).