Upgrade to the 7D and sell my 50D??

[bob williams]

A few Months ago, I upgraded from the 50D to the 7D rather than buying a new lens---Best decision I have made regarding gear purchases---I know the general rule is glass before body, but in this case, I think you will notice a significant difference in your images.


My suggestion-----Go for it.


Bob

[Richard Lane]

If you've got the glass to back it up like Bob, then the 7d would be a great upgrade, however, cytoman only has a EF-S 17-55mm. I think the 17-55mm plus a new 70-200mm and a 50D, would be a much better kit, than a 17-55mm, 28-135mm, plus a 7D.


So, here's the choice:


1) 50D Body, 17-55mm, 70-200mm f/2.8 IS or f/4 IS


or


2) 7D Body,17-55mm, 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS





I would choose #1) for now and then get the 7d later, as opposed to get the 7D now and the 70-200mm later. This way he could start shooting action, wildlife and birds right away.


Rich

[JJphoto]

even the 7D /70-200mm combo is not very good for action/wildlife/bird, you need something like 300mm or 400mm to get the job done, so as long as you will get those lenses soon, upgrading to the 7D first is not a bad idea, because the price is very attractive, you probably won't get that price if you upgrade your lenses first.

[Richard Lane]

I'm surprised about everyones recommendations. Is the 7D better than the 50D, of course it is. However, if you look at the big picture then $1400 is not that attractive because that kit lens is basically "usless" for his needs, and a7D body is $1540 new. So, $1400 won't get him to his goal.


If he adds a 1.4x extender (great) or 2x extender (good) to the 70-200mm f/2.8L and the 50D, then he will have a decent setup for the time being. It's certainly better for action then the alternative that everyone seems to be recommending, which is his current 17-55mm and a throw-in 28-135mm lens for action, wildlife and birding.


The only way thatI would agree with buying the used 7D, would be if he could buy the 7D body only for less money, and then sell the 50D and put that money towards one of the 70-200mm lenses. If both can't be done, I would go with the glass.


It basically comes down to:


Do youprefer a "Hot Body" or a "Nice Piece of Glass?"


Personally.., "I'm a Glass Man."


Rich

[darklord]

If you buy the 7D, sell the 28-135 for maybe $350, and the 50D for maybe $600, the 7D will only cost you $450 to upgrade. This is the way I think about it.

[JJphoto]

I actually agree with you Rich, if he can't sell the 28-135mm for good price then maybe $1400 is not that attractive. it also depends on how much he can sell for his 50D.

[Richard Lane]

Thanks JJ,


Canon sells the28-135mmfor $400 new, and for about $250 when purchased as a kit with a body, so if he gets $200 for it by itself, then I think he did well. That's why I was suggesting that if he really wants the 7D, to try and offer $1200.


Rich

[neuroanatomist]

even the 7D /70-200mm combo is not very good for action/wildlife/bird, you need something like 300mm or 400mm to get the job done

Absolutely agree that 200mm is not long enough for birds/wildlife.

If he adds a 1.4x extender (<s>great</s>pretty good) or 2x extender (<s>good</s>not so good) to the 70-200mm f/2.8L

I don't think a 70-200mm + 1.4x TC is the way to get to 280mm, and a 70-200mm + 2x TC is definitely not the way to get to 400mm. Compare the 70-200mm f/2.8 non-IS with the 100-400mm at 400mm f/5.6 (ISO 12233 crop link). The 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS plus 2x TC costs the same as the 100-400mm, lacks IS, and is quite optically inferior. The f/2.8 IS version + TC costs significantly more than 100-400mm, and still optically worse. The 70-200mm f/2.8 IS MkII + TC is even more expensive (pushing $1K more than the 100-400mm), and while the 70-200 II holds up better to a TC than any other 70-200 zoom, it's still not as good as the 100-400mm @ 400mm (although the MkII + 1.4x @ 280mm is as good as the 100-400mm @ 300mm - which is why I use the 70-200 II + 1.4x as a bird/wildlife lens when it's raining (but when it's dry, I use the 100-400mm).


An extender is useful if you only rarely need that focal length. If you regularly use a particular focal length (and for birds/wildlife, you will regularly use 400mm), then get a lens that natively covers that focal length (the few possible exceptions being the fast supertele primes, e.g. 300mm f/2.8L, 400mm f/2.8L, etc., which lose very little optical quality by adding a TC).

[Sean Setters]

Do youprefer a "Hot Body" or a "Nice Piece of Glass?"


Personally.., "I'm a Glass Man."

Absolutely fantastic quote. I may have to steal that one from time to time...

[Sean Setters]

Do youprefer a "Hot Body" or a "Nice Piece of Glass?"


Personally.., "I'm a Glass Man."

Absolutely fantastic quote. I may have to steal that one from time to time...