Glass or body?
Discussion
For awhile I've been looking to upgrade both body and one of the lenses to kit more suitable. I've managed to pick out what I want, but without having that much money to chuck into my gear I'm having to be a bit selective about what I get first and what I wait a bit longer for.
Now I've currently got a Canon 400D with the 18-55 IS II kit lens, 50mm f1.8 and a Tokina 11-16mm f2.8. The 400D isn't bad but does suffer from noise, and I don't know whether it's body or lens but the AF is sometimes slightly off when used with the prime for shots of the kids etc. It's also got a knackered hotshoe that I've tried fixing and failed and isn't worth the cost of getting Canon to fix.
The prime works well for family photography and to that end I probably use it most.
The Tokina I love to bits, comes in handy for indoors people photography but is mostly used for landscape stuff, the sorts of thing I enjoy doing. And it's good for astro, something I'm playing about with more.
The kit lens barely gets used because it just isn't that sharp and I'm rarely happy with the results. It also doesn't have as much reach as I'd like.
So I want to get a 70D as a new body - better noise and AF performance and the screen looks handy.
To replace the kit lens I want the 15-85mm based on it's reputation for being sharp and for the extra reach. I don't need a full on tele, just something sharp that I can use to isolate landscape scenes and as a walkabout lens.
I'm going to get both sooner or later, but is there a compelling reason (new body/lens releases pushing price down for example) to get one or other? I'll be buying second hand for both.
Now I've currently got a Canon 400D with the 18-55 IS II kit lens, 50mm f1.8 and a Tokina 11-16mm f2.8. The 400D isn't bad but does suffer from noise, and I don't know whether it's body or lens but the AF is sometimes slightly off when used with the prime for shots of the kids etc. It's also got a knackered hotshoe that I've tried fixing and failed and isn't worth the cost of getting Canon to fix.
The prime works well for family photography and to that end I probably use it most.
The Tokina I love to bits, comes in handy for indoors people photography but is mostly used for landscape stuff, the sorts of thing I enjoy doing. And it's good for astro, something I'm playing about with more.
The kit lens barely gets used because it just isn't that sharp and I'm rarely happy with the results. It also doesn't have as much reach as I'd like.
So I want to get a 70D as a new body - better noise and AF performance and the screen looks handy.
To replace the kit lens I want the 15-85mm based on it's reputation for being sharp and for the extra reach. I don't need a full on tele, just something sharp that I can use to isolate landscape scenes and as a walkabout lens.
I'm going to get both sooner or later, but is there a compelling reason (new body/lens releases pushing price down for example) to get one or other? I'll be buying second hand for both.
I'd love the 85mm f1.8 but the main use of the 15-85mm will be landscape work - isolating scenes mostly. And walkaround duty. So I really need a tele. And in that focal range the only other lens of consideration is the 17-55mm, which I gather is a touch sharper but I'd then need something from 55mm+ for more reach (I'm not convinced the 55-250mm is worthy of consideration) - only really the 70-200 f4L which is £400, and still leaves a focal gap...it gets messy. I've thought things back and forth and I think I've covered most of the bases in coming to the conclusion that for what I'll use them for the 70D and 15-85mm are a reasonable combo.
(I am still open to something else mind, it's entirely possible I've missed something.)
(I am still open to something else mind, it's entirely possible I've missed something.)
Edited by tenohfive on Tuesday 30th June 19:18
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff