Replace Everything or Replace Lens--Opinions?

Hey guys,

I'm looking into upgrading my camera equipment and I'm having some trouble deciding what to do.

Right now I use a Canon 350D/Rebel XT. According to one site I read, this became obsolete in 2006, so I think it's time I traded it in. I have the 18-55mm kit lens and the 75-300mm III (the cheap, non-USM, non-stabilized version) which I use for the now rare plane spotting excursion. I would be trading in those two as well.

I really don't think this setup is great considering how much the cameras have improved since the XT's release, and I'm looking to invest in some new gear.

I can't decide whether to keep my XT body and get the 70-200mm L lens ($650), or get the Canon T3i/EF-S 18-55mm IS II Lens/EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS bundle at Adorama ($1,000). I can't afford both, so it's got to be one or the other. Right now I'm leaning toward trading in my current Canon gear to Adorama and getting a credit to go toward the T3i package.

I recently started shooting soccer games, so I need the IS and something that can focus quicker than my cheap telephoto. The only thing I'm concerned about with either option is the loss of that 50-100mm. Also, when I'm planespotting I usually need that 300mm. Will the T3i 18MP sensor produce photos that I could crop tightly without any grain?

(I saw this picture on Flickr which was taken with the 55-250mm and the lower-end T1i, and the quality is amazing--I could never get something so sharp and crisp with my XT. This is what has inspired me to upgrade. http://www.flickr.com/photos/allenstephens/5462950119/)

Lastly, what kind of deal would Adorama typically give me if I traded in my current setup for the T3i package?

I'd really appreciate your thoughts on this!

You really have to say your budget. If the $1,000 combo is an option, then I guess that is your budget. Buy a used 40D and either the 70-300 IS or the 70-200 non IS, then save for an extender. This should put you at a $1,000, give or take. Personally, I rather have the 40D / 70-200 combo, and save for the extender, and forget the IS for now. I've also scene cheap prices for the 50D, which would let you crop a little more.

I've used the 55-250, and it's not in the same world as the 70-200 f/4.

Chris, I will give you my opinion.... I have a Canon XTI which I bought in 2006 as well and it has preformed very well for me..... But from my experience it's all about the GLASS........ those kit lens are made of pastic and not very high quality. back in 2008 I made the investment of a Canon 100-400L IS glass and never looked back... its not about megapixels... your camera sensor can only record whats coming trough the glass... and I have found the need for 400mm with aviation photography on many occasions.

Its your decision and your budget... But I would go for the quality lens before replacing the camera

Rich B
Boston MA

I would tend to agree with Chris...though sensors and processors and functions have improved, it all boils down to the glass and how you choose to edit your work. Even the best glass can benefit from some basic editing.

I agree with focusing (ha) on the lens, instead of the body, especially on a limited budget.

Sure, a new body will benefit, but you'd get more from a quality lens.

Thanks for all the insight--All the comments have been helpful in weighing my options.

I still haven't made a decision yet. To further complicate things, I just found out that someone I know has the 70-200mm L (non-IS) which they said I'm welcome to use whenever I want. I'm shooting with it later this week so I'll have to see how I like it.

I've always been told that the lens is what matters--not the body--just like many here have said. But I'm still attracted to the bells and whistles of the new bodies so I haven't completely disregarded that option.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris102

...the 70-200mm L (non-IS)...

---

I have the f/2.8 version of that - it's sublime!

And don't forget - Fred Miller was shot with a Rebel XT until he completely wore it out, and you've seen the kind of photos he got from that.

Add one more for quality glass and disposable bodies... HOWEVER, do not discount the feature sets and specs of a camera. While tru that cameras come and go, the right tool will definitely help capture a better image. Given ALL THE TIME IN THE WORLD, almost any camera can be pressed into service. But when the going gets tough, the lesser cameras will fall by the wayside. Always look to the application before deciding on your tool.

As for this hobby, you certainly do not need anything fancy in ways of a dSLR. All you really need is a camera that has a good meter you can trust and a somewhat decent buffer size. More megapixels help when you absolutely need to crop a little further or you decide you want to print really big.

If you start to get into Military Airshows, you may find that a super fast Auto Focus system and deep buffers help tremendously. Speaking of buffer, a camera with a very slow dump rate (that at which the camera off-loads the captured frames from static in-camera memory to the Compact Flash or sDHC cards) will sometimes become an annoyance. Does nto always happen when shooting slow moving, well spaced airliners, but just keep it in mind when researching the specs or real-user experiences. Nothign worse than having to wait for your camera to recover before you can press the shutter again :tongue:

I've been doing some research, and now I've added a used 28-300mm L to my options. But the only downside with that is I can't spend more than $1,400-ish on it, so I am kind of limited.

I was reading something how with some Canon cameras, the focal length will be greater than the highest focal length of the lens? Could someone explain this to me?

I've decided I definitely want the Rebel T3i and 18-55mm IS kit lens, but I'm still trying to pick out a secondary lens to buy.

I'm between the 70-300mm IS and the 70-200mm L f/4 (I can't afford the f/2 or the IS versions). I'm weighing the pros and cons of both, but I can't figure it out.

Is the 70-200 f/4 any good? Is there a reason why it's 1/2 the price of the f/2? Will I miss the f/2 aperture? Is the 70-300 as sharp as the 70-200 L?

Another thing I'm concerned about with the L lens is the loss of that extra 100mm and the lack of IS. I'm assuming that since there's only a $100 difference between the 70-300 and 70-200 that they're relatively the same quality?

I always wanted the 70-200 2.8 until I purchased my 70-300VC (image Stabilized) for around $450. I found that the image quality was par or better than the 70-200L lens. I have had the lens for a while and I am still BLOWN AWAY!

Please look at this old thread... I think anyone would be sold!
http://nycaviation.com/forum/threads...ghlight=tamron

Please look at the Canon Loyalty program as it will probably save you a bunch of cash....40% of a body? REALLY!
http://nycaviation.com/forum/threads...hlight=loyalty

Thanks! I'm reading now.

Another option I'm considering is the 60D/18-55mm IS/70-300mm IS

I think I'm going to go with the 60D, but I can't decide which lens. It will either be the 18-135 or 18-200 kit lens or the 24-105L. What are some thoughts on these lens combinations? I know the 24-105L is a very popular lens, but it's an f/4 max so I'm not sure about it's performance indoors. Canon does have the 24-70mm f/2.8L which I looked in to, but it's lacking IS which is something I need.

The 15-85 seems like a popular companion for the 60D, but when I researched it I saw that it has a lot of noticeable vignetting. Any thoughts on this?