New lens or new body

roderz88

roderz88

roderz88

Associate
Joined
7 Oct 2010
Posts
230
Hi folks, so I currently have a Canon 350D camera with the canon 18-55mm kit lens (non is version) and an old Sigma 55-200mm lens (also non is)

I somewhat feel the need to upgrade in order to get better quality images. However, I dont know whether to upgrade to a better camera, or to just get better lenses. I feel that a lot of my images are just not sharp enough and lack contrast and colour.

Any advice is appreciated :)
 
roderz88 said:
Hi folks, so I currently have a Canon 350D camera with the canon 18-55mm kit lens (non is version) and an old Sigma 55-200mm lens (also non is)

I somewhat feel the need to upgrade in order to get better quality images. However, I dont know whether to upgrade to a better camera, or to just get better lenses. I feel that a lot of my images are just not sharp enough and lack contrast and colour.

Any advice is appreciated :)
Click to expand...

I would go for a new lens. It depends on whether you plan on investing lots of dough in the future (eg move to Nikon or to full frame), but if you plan on staying Canon or not going full frame then a lens will offer the best bang for buck. Those lenses won't give better results on a high MP body (or noticeably better results anyway), although you may like some of the features from the newer bodies like much nicer displays at the back.

What kind of photography do you normally do? Landscape? Portrait? or a bit of everything? If portrait, the "nifty 50" is a very cheap canon lens with a nice big aperture and on a crop body makes a pretty decent portrait lens. Good sharpness at f5 and decent contrast. Primes can offer awesome quality for a decent price, but it can be a pain switching lenses sometimes.

If landscape, maybe pick up a decent wide lens (eg the tokina 10-16mm) so you at least get to try out some new perspectives and get some extra sharpness out of the deal.

If you have bags of cash to spend, there are, of course, plenty of options out there.

TL;DR glass before body in most cases.
 
Devrij said:
I would go for a new lens. It depends on whether you plan on investing lots of dough in the future (eg move to Nikon or to full frame), but if you plan on staying Canon or not going full frame then a lens will offer the best bang for buck. Those lenses won't give better results on a high MP body (or noticeably better results anyway), although you may like some of the features from the newer bodies like much nicer displays at the back.

What kind of photography do you normally do? Landscape? Portrait? or a bit of everything? If portrait, the "nifty 50" is a very cheap canon lens with a nice big aperture and on a crop body makes a pretty decent portrait lens. Good sharpness at f5 and decent contrast. Primes can offer awesome quality for a decent price, but it can be a pain switching lenses sometimes.

If landscape, maybe pick up a decent wide lens (eg the tokina 10-16mm) so you at least get to try out some new perspectives and get some extra sharpness out of the deal.

If you have bags of cash to spend, there are, of course, plenty of options out there.

TL;DR glass before body in most cases.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your help, I tend to do a bit of everything, im not a professional, I do is as a hobby, at least for now anyway. However I find that I tend to take more landscape and cityscape photos. I dont have that much money to spend, so Canon L lenses are out of the picture at this moment in time.

When you say lenses wouldnt offer better image quality on higher MP bodies, do you mean that the image quality on a certain lens would be pretty much the same on my camera as it would be on say a 600d?
 
Couple of thoughts, you tried a 50mm? Cheap and you will get beautifully sharp shots from it.

Are you post processing? Investing in Lightroom can make a huge difference to your shots.
 
The nifty fifty is awesome, don't let the price put you off. It's just a simple lens but it's extremely sharp and makes for some great portraits. I even found it fast to AF taking pictures of the family kids on a swing and in the playground. Even works well as a macro lens inverted with a conversion ring or extension tubes.
 
the nifty 50 is the second lens i got, only used it once but i got a really sharp shot of some flowing water even with my limited learning on manual
 
Genoma said:
I also got some great shots at Chirk castle with it, no flash allowed in there and it was darkish. All handheld:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ajyoung/sets/72157634562187770/
Click to expand...

:eek:

They wouldn't let me even take my camera bag in there. I had to argue for 5 minutes with them to promise my kit would stay in the bag, and the bag stayed at my side and that I had to be careful!

As the 70-200 has been mentioned, and so has Chirk, here's both: http://flic.kr/p/9xue9j

and: http://flic.kr/p/9xuaBw <-- fake sky alert!

Not the best images as I was rather hungover that day and had to keep running about to catch up with the family :D
 
Last edited:
Aswell as the 50mm 1.8. I have also been looking at the Canon 55-250 IS II lens. I have an old Sigma 55-200 (non OS) lens that my dad gave me, but I find it very soft and inconststent with focus. Do you think this lens would be a good bet?
 
I'm sure the IS will help, especially at the telephoto end. The 55-250 seems to be well regarded for the price.

One thing I find useful is to search for the flickr group for the lens you are considering where poeple post their pics with that lens. There are some good examples out there. Just don't expect L quality miracles but at that price does seem worth a punt. I'm half tempted myself...

http://www.flickr.com/groups/2042634@N25/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom