Upgrade Camera, or lens?

I'll make this quick, I sold my body due to some hard times, I jus recently purchased the Sigma 18-35 1.8 lens and was going to pair it with a 70D, I'd have to buy the body obv, which is $1100...

I did some research and people were saying the auto focus with the sigma was a hit or miss... So I came here and noticed a 60D in the sale section

Would you grab the 60D and Sigma 85 1.4 (Either that or 135 L, still debating)

Or jus grab the 70D...

Also whats another lens to pair with the 18-35, looking for something with low light, I'm looking for a good 2 lens combo for this camera.

Well I would make my own decision on the lens after I had a camera to put it on. If I were choosing between the 70D and the 60D I would probably go with a 60D unless I already had most of the lenses I wanted.

As for what second lens to use, that's a very personal thing. It's like asking which two friends you want to have with you. It all depends on what you'll be doing and what you like to shoot. 24-70 f2.8 may be a good way to go, but what if you want wider like a 10-20 instead? Or an 8-16? Or maybe you need a 150mm f2.8 macro. Or an 85 1.4 as you mentioned. Or a 70-200 f2.8. Or a 300mm.

My instinct tells me that you don't need ANY of these at the moment. If you did, you would know what you needed. So I would get the body, shoot, and worry about what other lenses to get when you find yourself wanting to shoot things that you can't.

kfreels wrote in post #16737949
Well I would make my own decision on the lens after I had a camera to put it on. If I were choosing between the 70D and the 60D I would probably go with a 60D unless I already had most of the lenses I wanted.

As for what second lens to use, that's a very personal thing. It's like asking which two friends you want to have with you. It all depends on what you'll be doing and what you like to shoot. 24-70 f2.8 may be a good way to go, but what if you want wider like a 10-20 instead? Or an 8-16? Or maybe you need a 150mm f2.8 macro. Or an 85 1.4 as you mentioned. Or a 70-200 f2.8. Or a 300mm.

My instinct tells me that you don't need ANY of these at the moment. If you did, you would know what you needed. So I would get the body, shoot, and worry about what other lenses to get when you find yourself wanting to shoot things that you can't.

Well I actually got a hired, well I should say promoted to a potential AV position at my job, my job is unsure if the position is something they NEED long term or just at the moment, so i jus get paid hourly... If I can figure out a marketing campaign and prove to them that these future videos (as well as pictures for web) can bring the company more revenue then it can be something I can continue to do and quit my day job.

In terms of how I shoot, well this is really up to me, a lot of the jobs are in doors, very few outside and mostly are lit, there are some events with darker scenes, holiday parties and things of that nature. Down the road long term, I'm sure there will be different uses for lens, but until it becomes a sure thing and its something I'm funding I'm looking for the most bang for my buck, and that is around $1000 (if I choose 60D).

A part of me wants a zoom lens, since the Sigma covers 18-35 then the second lens I would want of farther length, the 24-70 is a sick lens but its also a bit above my budget for both the f 2.8 and 4.0.

In terms of if I NEED a second lens, well no, I'm sure I could make the 18-35 work, I'd just have to invade peoples space, but thats something I dont want to do, I want to make the job slightly easier.

I would go for the 60D. If the lens should need some "AF adjustment", you can buy the Sigma USB dock, which would still be cheaper overall, than buying a 70D.
Put the savings towards your 2nd lens.

70D (micro focus adjustment will fix any problems with the sigma)

or

cheap ass body and a prime lens longer than the sigma. My XSi with a 1.8 is a great camera.

Heya,

I'd get the 70D. The built-in MFA is a big deal in my opinion. Then you're not reliant on calibrating any lens by buying additional docks (Sigma) or sending in bodies and lenses to have them professionally calibrated and often getting zero change in return. Do it yourself with MFA and don't lose sleep. Plus it has today's tech. The cost difference is not astronomical, I would go for the body-only 70D in this case.

The 18-35 F1.8 is a great lens. But it's also expensive. If you're looking for a two lens combo, here's my suggestion for the same price:

Canon EF 35mm F2 IS
Canon EF 85mm F1.8

Very best,

I'd suggest considering going back even another generation and consider bodies like the 50D. Still a good camera, they must be going for close to $200 these days, and gives you another few hundred dollars for glass. It also gives micro-adjustment which will might help with a fast prime (the Sigma zoom might need more complex adjustment via the dock, but I'd wait and see what it's like first).

You just mention shooting in low light, not what you're actually shooting. An 85 would generally go well with that zoom, either the Sigma or even cheaper the Canon 85 F/1.8 which is not a great deal slower and is pretty difficult to fault. You'll now have money for some lighting gear, at least a speedlight, which will do more for low light then any large aperture lens can.

Get the LENS.
nuff said.

hes gone wrote in post #16738014
=he's gone;16738014]70D (micro focus adjustment will fix any problems with the sigma)

or

cheap ass body and a prime lens longer than the sigma. My XSi with a 1.8 is a great camera.

Not true. Not the purpose of MFA. MFA exists to take calibration tolerances into account. It is only useful if you camera/lens combination has a consistent, unidirectional mismatch.

If your camera/lens combination is all over the place (front, back, dead-on), MFA can't help. It can't, and was not designed to, correct erratic focus.

GaryD wrote in post #16738356
Not true. Not the purpose of MFA. MFA exists to take calibration tolerances into account. It is only useful if you camera/lens combination has a consistent, unidirectional mismatch.

If your camera/lens combination is all over the place (front, back, dead-on), MFA can't help. It can't, and was not designed to, correct erratic focus.

I don't know what the specific complaints about the sigma have been. But I agree with you that MFA does nothing for erratic focusing. I just sold off a Tamron 17-50 that was consistant in decent light, but erratic in low light. There are trade offs with non canon lenses. Sigma is filling a gap in the market with the mentioned lens. If you need 1.8 in a wide crop lens you have to take what you can get.

Well I ended up going with the 60D and still debating between the 85, and 135, but will probably go with the 85 because of the crop sensor.

Smart on all accounts! 135 is looooong on a crop.

The 60D is a great camera. Good AF system and a solid interface - the two things I miss most about it.

85 is quite long on crop, and 135 is stupidly long. Depends on what you want to shoot, but I would lean toward the 85 if it were me. Personally, I didn't like the 85 on the 60D, but I was partial to the wider view of 28/30mm primes.

Keeping the budget below 1000 and already having the 18-35 I would probably be looking at a used 60D and either a used Sigma 24-70 f2.8 or a used Tamron 28-75 f2.8. Going with a prime like 85mm is going to leave you a huge gap between 35mm and 85mm. Don't get me wrong, the 85 is a great focal length and you can get them as 1.8 and 1.4, but personally with what you're doing, I would look to fill that gap first. At the very least if you feel like you need an 85mm, I would pick up a 50mm as well.

save up and get the L-glass,you can always pick up a older 40-d real cheap and there you go..not a big fan of sigma,sell that sucker and invest in canon.