Body or Lens or Both?

Buddy

Buddy

Buddy

Soldato
Joined
7 Sep 2009
Posts
2,787
Location
London
I've had my trusty 550d for a number of years. I've used the stock lens + bought a 50mm 1.8 canon to supplement. Mainly used for family events or pictures of monuments/structures on holiday.

Having recently been to the wildlife photography exhibition (which was amazing btw) I definitely want to change it up.

Now do I invest all my money into a new body? Second hand 5d are around £300. Any other suggestions? Or focus on a lens? Or stuff it and save up for a whole new package?

TLDR want better quality images. What would you buy ?
 
Wildlife photography and full frame (5D) aren't the best combination as you lose the 1.6x crop factor on lens focal length which helps bring the subject closer.
I would look at a Canon 7D - they are around £300 on ebay.

Lenses are always better investments and an awesome expensive camera body will be let down by a poor cheap lens.
Sigma and Tamron have some 150-600mm lenses which are great considering the price.
 
Last edited:
I take it you want to get into Wildlife Photography?

I would go lens first. The body you have although a few years old, had good reviews when released, 18MP is still pretty good.

If you can afford to upgrade the body and lens then do that - but if you can only afford to do one or the other, then lens first. If you upgrade your body you're still stuck with a kit lens and a 50mm.

BTW if you go Full frame (Canon 5D), it is likely your kit lens will not fit since I bet it is an EF-s lens rather than an EF lens.
 
By 'stock' lens, do you mean the 18-55mm EF-S kit lens? If so, you need to be aware that this won't work on full frame bodies such as the 5D. It will only work on APS-C format bodies. Your 50mm f1.8 is EF mount and so will work on both.

If you buy EF mount lenses (rather than EF-S) they are an investment because you can use them on any Canon DSLR body, full frame or APS-C.

Other than full frame, a used 5D doesn't offer that much more than your existing 550D. In fact less megapixels, although the 5D has a lovely sensor so the quality of those pixels is likely higher on the 5D.

The 5D would be great for landscapes. But you mentioned wildlife. In which case an APS-C format body is often an advantage because you get extra reach from lenses because of the 1.6x crop factor.

Since you already have 18-55 and 50mm, perhaps investing in a mid-range telephoto lens would be a good idea? Something like the Canon EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS perhaps? For telephoto, make sure to get a lens with image stabilization, it does make a big difference.

Personally I would invest in a lens or two first before upgrading the body. EF mount for maximum future upgrade compatibility, not EF-S.
 
Upgrading lens will make a bigger difference to IQ rather than upgrading the body will. A 100-400 mk2 for example will take really nice pictures, as will the aforementioned 150-600 Tamrons and Sigmas.
 
I would keep the camera and buy a lens, my personal choice would be a 300mm f/4.0 prime+ 1.4xTC but the 150-600mm offerings would work out cheaper and would be good enough.


The last thing you want to do is buy a 5D though, that would be a bug step backwards.
 
Clearly a novice. I need to read into some of the recommendations.

Any difference in quality between the sigma and tamrons? General impression I get is sigmas are better?

Part of me wants an all in one versatile lens to save having to go back and forth between my bag which is a pain at the moment when at family events. But then with these lenses I realise with such a wide coverage there's some sacrifice to quality?

Alternatively, could get x2 different lenses. One for wildlife /out and about and another for portraits?
 
Yes if you want versatility then you sacrifice a little in terms of image quality, but if you get a quality zoom then not so much that you'd notice in normal usage. Prime (fixed focal length) lenses will usually have better glass and maximum aperture than zooms. But if you find lens swapping (and carrying) a hassle then you can't beat a versatile zoom.

Personally I don't bother fitting my fixed lenses much because when out and about I don't like to keep lens swapping. So my two lenses that take most of my shots are the Canon 17-40L (my favourite) and Canon 70-300 IS.

I can't speak for Sigma versus Tamron, I usually opt for the Canon lenses. I do have one Sigma, the 150mm f2.8 macro which I'm not totally happy about the quality of given its high price tag. It's not a terrible lens, but not a great lens either because of its bulk, colour cast and focus hunting issues. Consequently its the lens I most often leave at home, despite liking to take macro shots when out and about.

A good lens is an investment as you can keep it across body upgrades over the years. Whether you choose a couple of versatile zooms or collection of primes is down to personal preference, how you like to shoot and how much gear you like to carry around with you.
 
D.P. said:
I would keep the camera and buy a lens, my personal choice would be a 300mm f/4.0 prime+ 1.4xTC but the 150-600mm offerings would work out cheaper and would be good enough.


The last thing you want to do is buy a 5D though, that would be a bug step backwards.
Click to expand...

variable prices and reviews for the 1.4x TC. Really worth it?

Cern said:
Yes if you want versatility then you sacrifice a little in terms of image quality, but if you get a quality zoom then not so much that you'd notice in normal usage. Prime (fixed focal length) lenses will usually have better glass and maximum aperture than zooms. But if you find lens swapping (and carrying) a hassle then you can't beat a versatile zoom.

Personally I don't bother fitting my fixed lenses much because when out and about I don't like to keep lens swapping. So my two lenses that take most of my shots are the Canon 17-40L (my favourite) and Canon 70-300 IS.

I can't speak for Sigma versus Tamron, I usually opt for the Canon lenses. I do have one Sigma, the 150mm f2.8 macro which I'm not totally happy about the quality of given its high price tag. It's not a terrible lens, but not a great lens either because of its bulk, colour cast and focus hunting issues. Consequently its the lens I most often leave at home, despite liking to take macro shots when out and about.

A good lens is an investment as you can keep it across body upgrades over the years. Whether you choose a couple of versatile zooms or collection of primes is down to personal preference, how you like to shoot and how much gear you like to carry around with you.
Click to expand...

The 70-300 is appealing. Few members have recommended it in this thread. For the price £290 seems like a good investment. Have you got any pics I can view when you've used this lens?

Shame flickr doesn't allow your to search images by lens use. EDIT NVM

canon 17-40l carries a hefty price tag £500. Might invest in it later when I get into landscape photography. The image quality does look great though.
 
Last edited:
Buddy said:
The 70-300 is appealing. Few members have recommended it in this thread. For the price £290 seems like a good investment. Have you got any pics I can view when you've used this lens?
Click to expand...

Yes it's a great lens for the price. It's also relatively lightweight and reasonably compact (for a zoom). There are more compact 70-300 lenses out there, like the Canon 70-300 DO IS, and ones with better quality such as an L series lens. But the price tag on those are 3x or more. The L zooms are often heavy beasts too.

Here's a few shots taken with the Canon 70-300 IS. Note this is on a 20D, so they are only 8MP. But it's an APS-C sensor so similar format to your 550D.

Golden Eagle
Lanner Falcon
Screech Owl
Bluebell Woodland
Nine Maidens Megalith
Another Megalith
Jousting Knight
 
Cern said:
Yes it's a great lens for the price. It's also relatively lightweight and reasonably compact (for a zoom). There are more compact 70-300 lenses out there, like the Canon 70-300 DO IS, and ones with better quality such as an L series lens. But the price tag on those are 3x or more. The L zooms are often heavy beasts too.

Here's a few shots taken with the Canon 70-300 IS. Note this is on a 20D, so they are only 8MP. But it's an APS-C sensor so similar format to your 550D.

Golden Eagle
Lanner Falcon
Screech Owl
Bluebell Woodland
Nine Maidens Megalith
Another Megalith
Jousting Knight
Click to expand...

Nice sharp picture. That's great thank you.

Interestingly, the Tamron SP AF 70-300 F4-5.6 which is £50 cheaper has got better reviews. Some stating the picture quality better at 300mm compared to the canon version but has slower AF.

choices choices
 
Last edited:
Buddy said:
Nice sharp picture. That's great thank you.

Interestingly, the Tamron SP AF 70-300 F4-5.6 which is £50 cheaper has got better reviews. Some stating the picture quality better at 300mm compared to the canon version.

choices choices
Click to expand...

Looks good. Similar dimensions to the Canon but somewhat heavier. Not sure how Tamron's Vibration Compensation system compares to Canon's Image Stabilization, but it probably gives similar results. The Tamron certainly seems to get good reviews and for the price you probably can't go wrong.

I'm very happy with how sharp my Canon 70-300 is at 300mm, but I think some early versions had issues with the barrel slipping when fully extended, if pointed upwards. This was subsequently fixed in later versions (mine doesn't have that trait).

What I would say is that if you're buying any telephoto lens, make sure it has some form of image stabilization (every manufacturer has their own name for it). It makes a huge difference, especially if you plan to use the lens at full extension or in low light. Some people will tell you "use a tripod" or "learn to steady your hands". The first isn't always practical, the second isn't something everyone is blessed with and old fartdom eventually overtakes us all :)
 
Cern said:
Looks good. Similar dimensions to the Canon but somewhat heavier. Not sure how Tamron's Vibration Compensation system compares to Canon's Image Stabilization, but it probably gives similar results. The Tamron certainly seems to get good reviews and for the price you probably can't go wrong.

I'm very happy with how sharp my Canon 70-300 is at 300mm, but I think some early versions had issues with the barrel slipping when fully extended, if pointed upwards. This was subsequently fixed in later versions (mine doesn't have that trait).

What I would say is that if you're buying any telephoto lens, make sure it has some form of image stabilization (every manufacturer has their own name for it). It makes a huge difference, especially if you plan to use the lens at full extension or in low light. Some people will tell you "use a tripod" or "learn to steady your hands". The first isn't always practical, the second isn't something everyone is blessed with and old fartdom eventually overtakes us all :)
Click to expand...

Thanks for the advice. Think I'll go canon.
 
Lens 100%. I went from a 550D to a 70D and there wasn't much difference in image quality with the same lenses.

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 plus Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L is a good combo.
 
Lens lens lens

Don't do any people photography and on a crop I haven't used my 50mm more than 3 times

If you have self control (unlike myself) 70-300 is a great lens length
But if you don't.. Its worth saving up for 'the lens' that is best for the job

Oh, one thing, and it will likely be controversial.. I really don't like non canon lenses for long shots
Always seem to have quirks.

Don't do what I did and get something too heavy (sigma 120-300mm is 3.3kg) and thus never use it

I do think my 400d to 70d made a big difference. (especially cropping in) and features.. But if you haven't got the lens.. You can't get the pic at all!
 
Last edited:
Definitely lens. 50mm 1.8 is cheap as chips and fits on any other EF mount, certainly fitted on my 5Diii. So keep it anyway.

Used to have a 70-300 with my 40D and got some great pictures, so personal opinion would be get a new lens, keep the 50mm lens anyway as resale isn't really worth it and then if you really want another body in future, splash out then.

Like DP says, 5D is a backwards step, particularly for wildlife.
 
munge said:
Definitely lens. 50mm 1.8 is cheap as chips and fits on any other EF mount, certainly fitted on my 5Diii. So keep it anyway.

Used to have a 70-300 with my 40D and got some great pictures, so personal opinion would be get a new lens, keep the 50mm lens anyway as resale isn't really worth it and then if you really want another body in future, splash out then.

Like DP says, 5D is a backwards step, particularly for wildlife.
Click to expand...

I will probably buy the lens in the next month or so.
The body maybe in the next 6 months depending.

If not the 5d what would you recommend? Any tips on buying second hand? Any reliable sources?

E.g. say I found something like this later on in the year. https://www.gumtree.com/p/digital-c...ith-original-box-and-50mm-1.4-lens/1155238535
Dodgy?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom