Which to upgrade?

Here is my current setup: XT body, EF 24-105 USM f/4 lens, "nifty fifty" 50mm f/1.8 lens

I have neglected photography (hobby) for past couple of years, finally have some spare time and getting back into it. At my most active, I shoot some senior portrait/engagement/fa​mily portrait pics for friends (just did senior portrait session and family portrait session this past weekend).

I sold some guitar gear (my other hobby), and including those funds I can probably swing around $350 or so. Just out of curiosity, I posted a WTB ad on our local Craigslist, for either a 40D body or an 85mm f/1.8 lens, not expecting much response. To my surprise a good number of good, reasonable offers have started pouring in.

I am headed out of town this weekend, and I would like to get whichever one I am going with before leaving. Which do you think I will be happier with, upgrading the body or getting the new lens? My head tells me upgrade the body, but darn if I haven't seen some outstanding portraits lately that were taken with that 85mm lens.

I'd say, get the 85mm and see if you like it. You can always put it back on Craigslist later if you don't like the lens, and get the 40D then. It's easier to sell a good lens than a body, in general.

I had the XT for sometime before I upgraded it to the 30D (even though its internally different from the 40D) I personally did that mainly because I didn't like the small body of the XT. I also wanted more FPS for my wildlife photography I was doing at that time.

If the size of the XT doesn't bother you I would go for the 85 1.8, assuming you don't mind the longer focal length of the 85 (FOV of about 135mm) then I would go that route. Its a personal choice and is still up to you and what your needs are.

If you don't like it then you could sell it for not much loss and get the camera body.

if it ain't broke, then don't fix it.

You have the 85mm covered with one lens that you have. I remember from my portrait class that the 50mm on a crop seemed to be a head and shoulders lens. If you go to 85mm, then you'd just need to stand father back, and then negate all the shalower DOF.

But if you used your 105 f/4 and stood an extra 4 feet back, you'd have the same DOF and some might say a more flattering image.

if your head is saying "body", there must be a reason. get the body.

plawren53202 wrote in post #14374443
Here is my current setup: XT body, EF 24-105 USM f/4 lens, "nifty fifty" 50mm f/1.8 lens

I have neglected photography (hobby) for past couple of years, finally have some spare time and getting back into it. At my most active, I shoot some senior portrait/engagement/fa​mily portrait pics for friends (just did senior portrait session and family portrait session this past weekend).

I sold some guitar gear (my other hobby), and including those funds I can probably swing around $350 or so. Just out of curiosity, I posted a WTB ad on our local Craigslist, for either a 40D body or an 85mm f/1.8 lens, not expecting much response. To my surprise a good number of good, reasonable offers have started pouring in.

I am headed out of town this weekend, and I would like to get whichever one I am going with before leaving. Which do you think I will be happier with, upgrading the body or getting the new lens? My head tells me upgrade the body, but darn if I haven't seen some outstanding portraits lately that were taken with that 85mm lens.

I would go with the 40 or 50D body. You should be able to get your hands on a 40 for around 400-450 and 50 for around 550-600. There is a few 40s with grips on here or were on here for the 450.00 mark. The 24-105 and nifty will do you fine for now.

rick_reno wrote in post #14375543
if your head is saying "body", there must be a reason. get the body.

Yeah, the things I think in my head I would like better about the 40D are: (a) ergonomics that are waaaaaay more suited to my hands than the tiny, plasticky XT; (b) 6 frames per second rate of fire vs 2.5 or whatever my XT has; (c) much better autofocus. B and C would both be very nice in that I spend a lot of time photographing my son, who will be 2 in a couple of weeks. Constant motion; faster focus and faster rate of fire would be great. Also, there is the 10 megapixels vs 8 in the XT; however, I am not terribly dissatisfied with IQ in the XT, it is more a matter of features.

plawren53202 wrote in post #14378380
Yeah, the things I think in my head I would like better about the 40D are: (a) ergonomics that are waaaaaay more suited to my hands than the tiny, plasticky XT; (b) 6 frames per second rate of fire vs 2.5 or whatever my XT has; (c) much better autofocus. B and C would both be very nice in that I spend a lot of time photographing my son, who will be 2 in a couple of weeks. Constant motion; faster focus and faster rate of fire would be great. Also, there is the 10 megapixels vs 8 in the XT; however, I am not terribly dissatisfied with IQ in the XT, it is more a matter of features.

40D is a great body, we've got one here. My wife took it to Seattle last weekend, it still produces good images.