upgrade canon xti or purchase a new lens?

[jkaye213]

hi!
i currently have a canon xti with the kit 18-55mm lens and i have since purchased the 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 and 50mm f1.4 lenses.

most of the work i am doing is shooting in low light settings at live music concerts but i also do a lot of street photography and travel photos - landscapes, sunsets, etc.

i'm thinking about either upgrading the body, or purchasing a new lens.

the lenses i have been looking at are the 17-40mm f4L and the 17-85mm f4-5.6 to upgrade the kit lens.

i have heard it is better to purchase lenses/upgrade the body but i think i am ready for something a little better and would like to upgrade from the rebel asap, however if it's a better use of money to buy a better wide angle/mid range lens i will hold off on the body upgrade (for $$ reasons of course)

any thoughts would be greatly appreciated!!

 

[mlemonds]

i would get the lens. there are a bunch of SLRs that are coming out with HD video modes (something that i think is a good feature). In a year or so, getting a body with HD video will be cheaper.

$.02

 

[seattle]

I would go with a new lens unless you really need high ISO and or full frame sensor. I have an Canon XTi and it is still working great for me. What body would you be looking for?

 

[aaronw1986]

Do you have any specific reasons to upgrade your body? Would the model you are looking at meet certain things the current one does not? With 10MP I'd say you'd be good to go, so if you are unhappy with something (unless very specific newer features) than I'd say you want to upgrade in a lens to produce better shots. You invest in lenses and buy bodies.

 

[bertpalmer]

I'd say get a lens to replace the crappy 18-55mm

The two lenses you suggest are good, but with a minimum f4 aperture they aren't going to be great in low light. I used to own the 17-40mm and if you have the budget I would highly recommend you purchase it.

 

[miles01110]

Get a lens. The XTi body isn't what's holding you back.

 

[AlaskaMoose]

The lenses you are thinking about aren't the best for low light photography at concerts and such. For low light photography it would be much better to buy one around f/1.4. For example, Ef 50mm f/1.4 (around $300.00).

If you need a zoom, then it will cost you a lot more, and won't gather as much light. For example the 17-55mm f/2.8 USM costs around $900.00.

You can look at a list of lenses here:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=141406

 

[LittleCanonKid]

The Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is a good option if you want the kit lens' focal length range and a constant f/2.8 aperture without totally breaking the bank. It's without IS, granted, but for a savings of $500ish over the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS it's worth taking a look at.

 

[Phrasikleia]

For example the 17-55mm f/2.8 USM costs around $900.00.[/url]

Not anymore. It shot up to $1050 in January, just at the time I was in the market for one.

 

[AlaskaMoose]

Not anymore. It shot up to $1050 in January, just at the time I was in the market for one.

Quite a price jump

I just looked at B&H, and it's a little cheaper ($999.99)
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...sp&A=search&Q=*&bhs=t&Go.x=0&Go.y=0&Go=submit

 

[wheezy]

...For example, Ef 50mm f/1.4 (around $300.00)....

OP already has that one.

I'd jump on the 17-40 F4L if you want something wide, if you want to make photography a long-time hobby I would skip any EF-S lens. Some are quite good (the 17-55 being one of them), but frankly I don't see a need for IS at such a wide angle. Also, L glass looks solid on both Full Frame and Crop (your Rebel) sensors, whereas the EF-S lenses only work on crop bodies.

The 50 1.4 was a solid buy, ditch the 70-300 and pickup the 70-200 in one it's of variations (F4, F4 IS, F2.8, F2.8 IS). Zooms have a much stronger need for IS so if you can grab an IS version don't hesitate.

My favorite concert lens is my 135 F2L, it's a decent zoom with an awesome low-light capability.

Basically, I'm saying grab an L in whatever range you need. You can get the 17-40 F4L or 70-200 F4L for less than $650, the 135 is about $750-$900. The 24-105 F4L IS is a very solid lens, pretty much the L Kit Lens, but I don't think 24 is wide enough on a crop body. I had a 28-105 as my widest on my 20D for a long time, and kicked myself for waiting so long on the 17-40.

My posts are too long :/

 

[AlaskaMoose]

OP already has that one.

I'd jump on the 17-40 F4L if you want something wide, if you want to make photography a long-time hobby I would skip any EF-S lens. Some are quite good (the 17-55 being one of them), but frankly I don't see a need for IS at such a wide angle. Also, L glass looks solid on both Full Frame and Crop (your Rebel) sensors, whereas the EF-S lenses only work on crop bodies.

The 50 1.4 was a solid buy, ditch the 70-300 and pickup the 70-200 in one it's of variations (F4, F4 IS, F2.8, F2.8 IS). Zooms have a much stronger need for IS so if you can grab an IS version don't hesitate.

My favorite concert lens is my 135 F2L, it's a decent zoom with an awesome low-light capability.

Basically, I'm saying grab an L in whatever range you need. You can get the 17-40 F4L or 70-200 F4L for less than $650, the 135 is about $750-$900. The 24-105 F4L IS is a very solid lens, pretty much the L Kit Lens, but I don't think 24 is wide enough on a crop body. I had a 28-105 as my widest on my 20D for a long time, and kicked myself for waiting so long on the 17-40.

My posts are too long :/

The 135mm L is a heck of a nice lens. I decided not to buy it because I already have a 100mm Macro, and EF 200mm f/2.8L prime, but it's hard to resist not buying it knowing fully well that it costs under $1K. The 200mm prime is quite fast-focusing, and tack sharp as well.

 

[wheezy]

The 135mm L is a heck of a nice lens. I decided not to buy it because I already have a 100mm Macro, and EF 200mm f/2.8L prime, but it's hard to resist not buying it knowing fully well that it costs under $1K. The 200mm prime is quite fast-focusing, and tack sharp as well.

I'm thinking about the 200 right now, well, for my next someday lens. My next buy is hopefully the 5DII, at which time I'm pretty sure I'll want a longer lens to make up the sudden loss of my 135 on a crop body. And at about $800... I like the sound of less than a grand.

It kinda looks like the 135 with an extra inch on the end, hence the 2.8.... would the 1.4 converter give me basically the same thing? (189mm F2.8)... I wonder how an IQ test would pan out. I might have to try that with some rentals.

 

[wheelhot]

Actually I think owning the 135 for a crop sensor doesn't make sense cause it will be very hard to use it due to the x1.6, I already have trouble using my 100mm for portraits, 135 would be a nightmare to me. Although if you are aiming for telephoto then I guess that is okay if you are aiming for specific shots and being a very sharp lens, adding a teleconverter to it shouldn't degrade the image quality that much

 

[toxic]

hi!
i currently have a canon xti with the kit 18-55mm lens and i have since purchased the 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 and 50mm f1.4 lenses.

most of the work i am doing is shooting in low light settings at live music concerts but i also do a lot of street photography and travel photos - landscapes, sunsets, etc.

i'm thinking about either upgrading the body, or purchasing a new lens.

the lenses i have been looking at are the 17-40mm f4L and the 17-85mm f4-5.6 to upgrade the kit lens.

is the camera holding you back somehow? if not, spend whatever cash you've got on a lens. if it is, you can sell it and get a 20 or 30D for not much more (the 30D runs around $430), and do what you want with the remainder.

as for lenses: upgrade the 18-55 to a Tamron 17-50 or Canon 17-55 IS. the 17-85 is a poor lens for the price (and it's slow), and the 17-40 is no better than either of the aforementioned lenses while being one stop slower.

i also suggest the Sigma 30/1.4, or the Canon 35/2 if you can't afford the Sigma. there's also the Sigma 20/1.8 if you want something wider for both low light and street photography.

 

[AlaskaMoose]

Actually I think owning the 135 for a crop sensor doesn't make sense cause it will be very hard to use it due to the x1.6, I already have trouble using my 100mm for portraits, 135 would be a nightmare to me. Although if you are aiming for telephoto then I guess that is okay if you are aiming for specific shots and being a very sharp lens, adding a teleconverter to it shouldn't degrade the image quality that much

I would use it with my 40D, but for head-shots from a distance. You can also add a 12mm (or so) Kenko tube, and take wonderful close-ups of flowers. I have done that several times with the 200mm prime, but now that I have a 100mm Macro I use this one instead.

I have the 100mm Macro, 200mm L, and 400mm L. With a 1.4x teleconverter, I sort of fill the gaps between primes.

 

[gatepc]

I would get a good tele like a fixed focal length 135mm F2 for shooting concerts far away but with with a fast lens. or you could get a powerful flash unit to help for low light.