Better Upgrade? 50D or an L?

[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 []


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 []