Upgrade Canon Body or Lens

MonArk · #1 (**permalink**) 27-05-2009, 06:23 PM

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

glsammy · #2 (**permalink**) 27-05-2009, 06:35 PM

I'd advise you to upgrade your lens first.A good lens will give you much more return for your money than upgrading the camera body.
OK a 40D will give you a faster frame rate in continuous mode, but the differences in image quality will be tiny, if any!

eeyore · #3 (**permalink**) 27-05-2009, 06:54 PM

lens definitely - I dont think your lack of detail is down to the sensor so much as distance from subject.

incidentally the 100-400 does have IS, if for some reason you dont want IS you could also look at the sigma 50-500 and the canon 400mm f5.6 prime.

another cheaper option would be to get a canon (or sigma) 90-300 or 70-300 which would give you a bit more reach for a fraction of the cost of the longer lenses

Geoff F · #4 (**permalink**) 27-05-2009, 08:42 PM

In reality, there isn't that much difference between a 350D and a 40D in terms of image quality. Although, admitedly, I wouldn't want to switch from my 40D to a 350D but that is mostly due to the feel and balance of the 40D particularly when used on a bigger lens.

I never use a fast burst rate, personally I think it tends to increase camera shake problems. There are a number of other easier to use functions on the 40D but you can get along without these for now. Just don't hold a 40/50D in your hand so you won't get tempted.

So get a better lens now, but keep saving for the future.

MonArk · #5 (**permalink**) 27-05-2009, 08:54 PM

Thanks for such definitive responses. I take it that an adapter/converter will lose as much quality as I will save by not having to crop even if I start with the L series 70-200?

eeyore · #6 (**permalink**) 27-05-2009, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonArk

Thanks for such definitive responses. I take it that an adapter/converter will lose as much quality as I will save by not having to crop even if I start with the L series 70-200?

you could get by with a 1.4 tc - but that would only give you 98-280 f5.6 and a decent quality TC would cost you nearly as much as a 90-300 f5.6 lens (probably more if you bought the lens s/h)

dont go with a 2xtc as not only will optical quality suffer but it would be an effective f8 140-400 so your af would pack up in all but the brightest light.

you could go with a 2xtc if you swapped the lens for a 70-200 f2.8 but that would cost more in total than just buying the 100-400

MonArk · #7 (**permalink**) 28-05-2009, 05:44 AM

Thanks again. I think I may have underestimated the cost, even 2nd hand, of the Canon 100-400 so I may have to go the Sigma route and join the 150-500 vs 50-500 debaate.. Maybe next year I can afford the feel of the 40D.

Regards

Boddie · #8 (**permalink**) 28-05-2009, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonArk

Thanks again. I think I may have underestimated the cost, even 2nd hand, of the Canon 100-400 so I may have to go the Sigma route and join the 150-500 vs 50-500 debaate.. Maybe next year I can afford the feel of the 40D.

Regards

There is no such thing as the '150-500 vs 50-500 debaate'

These two lenses are not comparable. One is a coffee grinder, and one is a fantastic lens

Markulous · #9 (**permalink**) 28-05-2009, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boddie

There is no such thing as the '150-500 vs 50-500 debaate'

These two lenses are not comparable. One is a coffee grinder, and one is a fantastic lens

I obviously know 'togs who make excellent coffee - they can both turn in very good images!

I'm looking at the 150-500mm as it covers the range I need - currently only use the 100-400mm with a 1.4xTC (to get the reach). But then I'm also looking at the 70-200 f/2.8 IS instead (for shallow DOF) for the bottom end (but I'd end up taking two heavyish lenses and spending a hell of a lot more!)

eeyore · #10 (**permalink**) 28-05-2009, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boddie

There is no such thing as the '150-500 vs 50-500 debaate'

These two lenses are not comparable. One is a coffee grinder, and one is a fantastic lens

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