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 ?
 
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?
 
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:
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:
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.
 
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:
Last edited:
413x said:
I think it's only the Canon mkii DOs that are good from what I remember?

I don't think wildlife is one you're gonna be happy cheaping out on. I wasnt. Zoo is fine. But true wildlife.. To get anything you're happy with I'd say 100-400mm canon lens is probably cheapest I'd even consider.

But I'm pretty fussy


What exactly do you mean by wildlife?

If you mean UK birds.. That's gonna be expensive
Of you mean zoo that's not too tough
If you mean bugs (macro) that sits in between.
Click to expand...

Probably birds/zoo
Macro would be a huge bonus for insects and general

The pure reason I suggested 70-200 is because the sharpness in the L lens is amazing. With the 550d crop equates to roughly 320mm?

Look at this guy e.g. he uses this lens.https://m.flickr.com/#/photos/steviec-photography/sets/72157628258201743/
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the responses :)

Quite impressed with the IQ of the cropped shots on this thread. Cern the IQ at 300mm cropped is great.

Joel the one of the monkey on your Flickr is great. I've given it a fav and follow.

There should be an OCUK nature reserve/zoo meet
 
Last edited:
413x said:
If you can satisfy your wildlife via macro you can get a crackin used lens for under 500.

But I love macro. I shall post my favourite ever pic
(fav not cause of the pic, but cause of the animal in it)
Click to expand...

Is decent macro possible with the 70-300mm? Doesn"t the far 70mm focal range make it difficult?
 
413x said:
i didnt actually realise you could see them all. i saw you followed. i need to get back out there. i havent updated for ages
Click to expand...

Yeap same here. You'll notice the last 2 pics were uploaded just this week. Last ones were in June 2015. As mentioned I went to the wildlife exhibitions which has inspired me to get back into it.
 
Just put an order down for the 100-400mm L lens.
Didn't want to regret getting something shorter.

Anyone live is Surrey? Any go to places for wildlife photography?
 
And said:
Spend your money on glass.

Open your front door? Bird feeder in the back garden? Local park? RSPB reserve in London? Everywhere is a go to place for wildlife photography.
Click to expand...

I visited a nature reserve today. The path went around it but the reserve itself was completely cordoned off with either a metal fence or high hedges. There were no viewing boxes or vantage points. The small views you could get were so far from the water fowl it wouldn't matter how powerful your lens was.

Perhaps I should reword the question. Any specific nature reserves people recommend down south?

Of course I will experiment in my garden but there will be a limitation to the species youll come across.
 
Thought I'd update and discuss next steps.

I've come a long way using the 100 - 400 mark 1 over the last few months. Fantastic lens for £700 however as a few posters mentioned as a wildlife/bird photographer you are constantly after more reach.

I have also realised the limitations of my 550d particularly the limited buffer and poor motion tracking as well only have 9 focal points with no quick adjustment option.

My first step therefore was to get a 7d mark 2 which I will order soon and see how I manage with the current lens.

I'm very very tempted to swap the 100-400 for a 150-600 sigma C. I did consider a 1.4 teleconverter but the 2 stop penalty will be way too much for the current lens. I'm slightly worried about any loss of image quality with the sigma - anyone have any experience with this one?
 
Thanks for the input. Thoughts on grey imports?
I can get the 7dm2 for £300 cheaper if I go via hdewcameras. They give you a warranty but is the saving truly worth it compared to a genuine Canon warranty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom