I am recovering from surgery and off work with way too much time on my hands.
I want to retire in two years and spend more time to my photography hobby.
I currently have a Canon 60D with the kit 18-135 lens. I also have a 28 1.8 that I love. I also have an older 75-300 lens. I really like the 60D.
My love is landscapes and low light photography. My 28 1.8 does great on my low light needs.
I would love one day to move to a full frame such as the 6D one day, but that is only a wish.
So, I would like to upgrade my zoom capabilities over the 18-135. So that well worn 15-85 or 17-55 lens discussion is being internally debated in my noggin. I like the extra reach of the 15-85 and from what I read, I should see an improvement over my non STM 18-135 kit lens.
My struggles are the debate of degree of picture improvement (especially sharpness) of each of those lenses versus my 18-135. Would I see enough of image quality improvement if I purchased one of those lenses all together knowing that both lenses can't be used on a full frame camera. Because I am frugal, I want to make a solid cost versus benefit analysis.
If Full Frame cameras continue to close the price gap with cropped sensor data, what will the used market be for EF-S lenses down the road.
I would love yo hear dome thoughts on this debate. Thanks so much.
My Flickr pictures: