New body or new lens?

Joined
Apr 21, 2007
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
23
Points
38
Location
Sydney, Australia
Your Mac's Specs
13" MBP, 2.26GHz, 8gb RAM
I had my eye on the Canon 7D for quite some time now and went to take a look at it in the shop today. The sales guy there who knows his equipment extremely well asked me what bothered me about my current body (a Canon 400D/Rebel XTi) which I said was predominantly the image quality. He told me that there would hardly be a difference in quality between the two and should instead invest in some pro-level lenses.

Now, I know that lenses are the biggest decider when it comes to image quality but I really thought that the jump between the sensor in the 400D and the 7D would also make a significant difference. He said that because the sensors are the same size, it really doesn't make a difference and what you pay for in the 7D is HD recording and an amazing AF system (since most of my work is studio, AF is not so important to me). If I want better image quality from the body, I'd need to go to a full frame camera like the 5D Mark II (which I don't have the money for).

What I want to make sure before I go and spend all my money is if he's right! He showed me a number of lenses, my favourite so far being the Canon 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM. Alternatively, I could get the Canon 24-70mm f2.8 IS USM and later on get a Canon 10-22mm f3.5-4.5 USM when I have a bit more money so I can get back into landscapes.

I'm about to finish my degree in graphic design (majoring in photography) so I'm ready to start building a pro-level kit, which is the reason for the upgrade. Just looking for advice on where to go!

I'm happy to go with a Tamron or Sigma lens as well, it's just the guy in the shop didn't seem to be very impressed by them. I have a Tamron 90mm f2.8 already and love it (apart from that I'm working with entry level 18-55mm and 75-300mm lenses. Oh, and a Canon 50mm f1.8 which I love).

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
 
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
4,554
Reaction score
146
Points
63
Location
Crawley, England
Your Mac's Specs
20" Intel iMac 2.4 Ghz/3G Ram/320HD, Snow Leopard. PBook G4, 1.5Ghz/1.5 Ram/250 HD, Leopard 10.5.6.
I think considering your work that he is definitely right, and in the long run you will benefit more from the lenses at the moment, as they will last a lifetime and always be compatible with newer Canon bodies.
If the extra features on the 7D only releate to AF and HD video, then they are not a big defining factor IMO.
Go for the Canon lenses, you won't regret that ever IMO.
 
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
3,343
Reaction score
213
Points
63
Location
Forest Hills, NYC
Your Mac's Specs
15-inch Early 2008; Processor 2.4 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo; Memory 4 GB 667 MHz DDR2 SDRAM; 10.7.5
Well, I agree with him on spending on lenses vs a new body, but specifically because you mentioned that you do studio work. I don't agree with him that your current body would be just the same as a 7D in terms of high ISO noise control though, so if you were to be doing a lot of candid night shooting without a flash, then that would be important as well.

But hold on a minute with the zoom lenses. If you're primary interest is studio photography, and you're ready to start building a pro kit, then I'd personally recommend going the way of primes. I've heard that the 85 1.2 is nothing short of perfect, and looking at sample photos, it's easy to agree with that assessment: Full-size sample photos from Canon 85mm F/1.2

I also TOTALLY disagree with him about third party lenses. Well, Tamron I've found to be crap in general but Sigma produces some great optics when you get past their iffy quality control issues. Lately, they've been much better, and their latest lenses are gorgeous (50 1.4 - 30 1.8 ) in terms of IQ. I actually own their 28 1.8 and it's spot on with my Nikon D300 in every way. And if their new lenses coming out very shortly have the same optics as their 50 1.4 (which I'm sure it will) then I'm likely going to buy it over the new soon to arrive Nikon 85 1.4 And Sigma is very good about repairs, so if focus is off, they'll fix it very quickly and you're promised to get a good copy.

I also wouldn't ever discard Zeiss or Tokina depending upon the subject. Tokina makes a couple of excellent wide and ultra wide angle lenses, like their 11-16mm. Just look at them on pixel peepers.

What do you shoot in the studio ? If anything, I'd invest in really great glass and perhaps think about another camera down the line as a second body so you don't have to keep changing lenses all the time. That camera doesn't have to be anything more than a used version of what you already have.

How's your lighting equipment situation, by the way ? Because that's actually a **** of a lot more important than the body OR the lens if it's lacking. That is, since you're in a studio.

That said, have you seen this: http://fstoppers.com/iphone/

The video is very amusing/entertaining, but I do take issue with his approach. Though he sets up some softboxes with flood lights from Lowes, those octoboxes and softboxes are VERY expensive, and kind of defeat the purpose of his entire point. Regardless, it does prove what a difference lighting makes in the grand scheme of things.

Doug
 
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
4,554
Reaction score
146
Points
63
Location
Crawley, England
Your Mac's Specs
20" Intel iMac 2.4 Ghz/3G Ram/320HD, Snow Leopard. PBook G4, 1.5Ghz/1.5 Ram/250 HD, Leopard 10.5.6.
+1 about Sigma btw.
 
OP
Leukeh
Joined
Apr 21, 2007
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
23
Points
38
Location
Sydney, Australia
Your Mac's Specs
13" MBP, 2.26GHz, 8gb RAM
Thanks for your help everyone.
The reason I haven't looked at prime lenses just yet is because while most of my work is done in studio I still do outdoor work when I can. Studio can get cramped sometimes! So really, I want something to start with that will replace my current crappy 18-55mm kit lens. Also, I already have the Tamron 90mm f2.8 and the Canon 50mm f1.8 (neither of which are pro level I know but still give me much better images than my kit lens). I'll eventually invest in some high quality primes but first I want to replace my standard lens.
 
OP
Leukeh
Joined
Apr 21, 2007
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
23
Points
38
Location
Sydney, Australia
Your Mac's Specs
13" MBP, 2.26GHz, 8gb RAM
If I'm planning on upgrading to a full frame camera in the future, do I need to buy lenses that will be compatible with both my 400D and a 5DII (assuming that's what I buy... this is probably a few years off)?

Been looking at the 16-35mm f2.8L and the 24-70mm f2.8L... Eugh, too many choices!
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2007
Messages
2,641
Reaction score
134
Points
63
Location
Durtburg, WV
Your Mac's Specs
Sooper Fast!
I think considering your work that he is definitely right, and in the long run you will benefit more from the lenses at the moment, as they will last a lifetime and always be compatible with newer Canon bodies.
If the extra features on the 7D only releate to AF and HD video, then they are not a big defining factor IMO.
Go for the Canon lenses, you won't regret that ever IMO.

More MP, better high ISO performance, superior AF with a ton more AF points and faster, better system, better LCD which can help with defining sharpness in photos, and a lot of other features separate the 7D from the 400D. I mean, his camera was released probably about 3-4 years ago. That's a life time in terms of electronics.

Well, I agree with him on spending on lenses vs a new body, but specifically because you mentioned that you do studio work. I don't agree with him that your current body would be just the same as a 7D in terms of high ISO noise control though, so if you were to be doing a lot of candid night shooting without a flash, then that would be important as well.

High ISO performance is vital for much more than candid night shooting. I'm using a 5D MKII and I was shooting at 1600-6400 ISO the other night while doing car rig photos.

I regularly use ISO 3200-6400 when shooting bands.

I also use high ISO when shooting portraiture in darker environments when I don't want to try and balance a one second exposure with my flashes.

If I'm planning on upgrading to a full frame camera in the future, do I need to buy lenses that will be compatible with both my 400D and a 5DII (assuming that's what I buy... this is probably a few years off)?

Been looking at the 16-35mm f2.8L and the 24-70mm f2.8L... Eugh, too many choices!

It depends on the lens. A Canon 17-55 f/2.8 holds it's value well and if you need a lens in that focal length, then you should purchase it. And Canon only makes 6-7 out of over 60 lenses that are EF-S mount and will not fit on a full frame or aps-h sensor camera.

I use a 17-40 f/4, 24-70 f/2.8, and 70-200 f/2.8 IS for my zooms. It covers the gamut from UWA to telephoto for as much as I need. If I were to use these on a crop sensor camera, I'd need a wider lens for the wide angle though. 24-70 on an aps-c camera is just not wide enough at the wide end and 70-40 give you a pretty standard view compared to something like a 10-20 when you need to go wide.
 

Shop Amazon


Shop for your Apple, Mac, iPhone and other computer products on Amazon.
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon and affiliated sites.
Top