Upgrade Canon Body or Lens

[Markulous]

Originally Posted by eeyore

the sigma 150-500 is the new one with OS and while it doesnt have the HSM of the 50-500 it is considerably quiter than the little bigma

Sigma - Lenses
This lens incorporates HSM (Hyper Sonic Motor), which ensures a quiet and high-speed AF as well as full-time manual focusing capability

Probably wouldn't be considering it otherwise as I AF to MF most of the time

[kiff]

Originally Posted by eeyore

nah mate you're thinking of the 170-500 , thats the coffe grinder , tho it does take great pics as well as whipping up a tasty expresso

the sigma 150-500 is the new one with OS and while it doesnt have the HSM of the 50-500 it is considerably quiter than the little bigma

Um what do you mean it doesn't have the HSM of the 50-500? all I can say is the Hyper Sonic Motor (HMS) in my 150-500mm is very quite much quieter then any of my other motorised lenes I have.
the only time it makes a noise is when I'm using OS, the first 150-500 I had did make a bit of a noise but then it had a fault,
when I took it back I tried both the 50-500 and the 150-500 while using AF the new 150-500 I would say was a bit quieter then the bigma the only time the bigma was quieter then the 150-500 was when the OS was used, even then OS is quite and not a problem, but I must say I thought the bigma was a bit faster at focusing.

[LindaB]

Originally Posted by MonArk

Hi everyone,

I am currently using a Canon 350D with the 70-200 F4L lens. Ignoring compsition issues, lack of experience etc. I can't say I am overwhelmed with the detail even after adjustment ( I always shoot RAW). Part of the problem of course is that the 200mm length is still not that long and cropped pictures inevitably reduce IQ(or is it inevitable?). I am therefore considering a secondhand purchase:

1. Upgrade lens to the 100-400mm L series,
2. Upgrade body to either 450d, or
3. Upgrade body to 40d.

The 40d feels lovely but I understand it has the same sensor as the 450d and so I wonder if the image quality is actually any different. (I have heard it suggested that the metal body reduces shake vs the plastic 450d) but even s/hand there is a big difference in cost. If I trade in my 350D my net outlay on the 40D is going to be about £250 - £300 but only £200 or so on a 450D.

If I trade in my 70 - 200 for the 100 to 400 (both without IS) then my net outlay will be about £200 to £300. (I think)

Your thoughts would be welcome.

Thanks

Hi

I think you would be very foolish to get rid of your 70-200 F4L, it is one of the best L lenses for the money that you could wish to buy. Its very versatile as you can also use it for much closer shots - down to around 4ft. The quality of photos taken with the combination of the 350D and the 70-200 F4L should be very good indeed - and without wanting to cause offence, I would imagine that the quality issues you mention may well be down to either your lack of experience or something you are doing in your post processing that is not bringing the best out of your photos.

In answer to your question: "the 200mm length is still not that long and cropped pictures inevitably reduce IQ(or is it inevitable?" - the answer is no, it is not inevitable. If you have taken a really good shot in the first place, cropping wont badly damage the quality - I have several shots with that combination, taken at a distance that was pushing it distance wise for that lense, then cropped and they have still been pretty good quality, even shot in jpeg and not raw!

I still have, and use, my 350D as a second body (prior to that I had the
300D), but I do have the 40D as well. I also have the Canon 400mm F5.6L prime which is also very good. It has taken me 4 to 5 years to acquire some decent lenses, so its certainly worth waiting and saving to get a decent lense.

Yes, the 40D is a very nice camera, it is also much heavier than the 350D - I will also hasten to add, that unless you get yourself far more familiar with using your 350D with good results, I personally dont think your results would be much better with an upgraded camera.

If its more distance that you want, then the best use of your money would be to save up and look for a decent longer focal length lense - you can pick up some decent second hand ones if you look around. With a longer focal length lense, apart from the cost, comes the extra weight of the lense which will also add to your quality frustrations unless you are prepared to put in a lot of practice to get better image results, and maybe adjust your post processing - try shooting in large fine jpeg and see if the quality is any better.

It might be interesting to hear in more detail what your quality issues are, what shooting modes and adjustments you are using, and subjects you are photographing.

I honestly dont think you are ready to upgrade to a 40D from what you have said above - I would save your money for the time being towards a good longer focal length lense and endeavour to get some help with your quality issues.

Regards.
Linda

[Boddie]

Originally Posted by eeyore

nah mate you're thinking of the 170-500 , thats the coffe grinder , tho it does take great pics as well as whipping up a tasty expresso

the sigma 150-500 is the new one with OS and while it doesnt have the HSM of the 50-500 it is considerably quiter than the little bigma

I'll go back to bed now

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Boddie

I'll go back to bed now

you arent the only one - contrary to my earlier comment the 150-500 does have HSM *doh* what i was thinking of was the difference in glass.

The 170-500 however doesnt have HSM which accounts for the coffee grinder noise

[MonArk]

In case anyone else is asking the same question I thought I would reply with my own conclusion.

BODY!

I have now got a 40D and I am stunned, overwhelmed and excited by the difference in output. It may be me - better balanced camera, build quality so less prone to shake etc., or maybe it is just much better. Personally I don't mind which because I am so pleased with the outcome. I am getting so much sharper images even after heavy cropping.

So far I haven't had the opportunity to really try it out but there is no way I would have got such a sharp image of the Godwit (see my Gallery) before given that it is about 100% crop.

My 70-200 F4L was always a good lens but it performs so much better on the better body.

[ollyk]

The 350d has got an inferior focus system (digic II?) to other camera's such as 400 and then a stage further with 450d I think, not sure about 40d but I am sure it will have a similar or more advanced processor than the latter.
I have always been a little underwhelmed with my Canon, when I had a Nikon 8700 I could outperform my Canon 350d in some area's especially when cropping, and this includes tripod shots etc!

When I look on various sigma lens photo threads on other forums (great example for the 70 - 300 APO on a certain forum) I can often see the difference in shots made between a 350d and other cameras too, and a click on exif info more often than not confirms my suspicions!

My advice - read steves digicams on the camera you are looking at, familiarize yourself with the way it works, then take your camera, lens and memory to a Jesops store or local independent and have a play around and report back here!

I am sure that is a fair test and will help you make the best choice!

Oh and I would love a 450d for one main reason - I find it unbelievable that I have to pull the camera away from my face and mess around to adjust ISO, which is surly a much more important function than the stupid quick print nonsense they assigned to a dedicated button Stupid Canon!

Olly.