New Body Or Better Glass??? Please enlighten me...

I recently bought a like new 50D with 6K clicks. I'm currently in the marked for an upgrade.

I'm really struggling deciding if going Full Frame or buy the new Sigma 70-200 2.8. My images are decent with the 50D but I feel there's something missing here. I currently shoot with a 75-300 which I know if a crappy lens.

I can only get one of the two. I shoot portraits and drifting events. Any thoughts from my fellow photographers?

Some of my photos with current equipment below...

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/UNQg​GW

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/UNcE​pn

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/UNcE​We

I used to have a 50D. It was a great camera and produced for me. I also used to own the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 OS and used it with that camera. Loved that lens. If you can get a good deal on one I say go for glass and see if it improves things for you.

I'd say go with glass! I had (and still have) a 75-300, which was a kit lens, along with the 18-55. It came with my 500d. The first new lens I bought was a 70-200f4L. It was night and day compared to either of the other lenses. Even though the 70-200 struggles in low light (which that sigma would not) I still love that lens. Good glass makes a lot of difference, and I would choose that every time.

To be fair though, those drifting shots are pretty decent I'd say!

I'd say glass - combining a FF body with that 75-300 is not going to get great results. Any specific reason you settled on that Sigma?

LonelyBoy wrote in post #18361336
I'd say glass - combining a FF body with that 75-300 is not going to get great results. Any specific reason you settled on that Sigma?

Yeah the price range. The Canon is out of my range as far as money goes. I was comparing it to the Tamron but I have a Sigma 10-20 and is super sharp. I have never owned a Tamron so don't know what to expect. The sigma is $900 new on ebay where the Tamron is,$1300. All the reviews and videos I seen looks like the Sigma might be a better choice.

I would recommend glass here as well.

erikfig wrote in post #18361357
Yeah the price range. The Canon is out of my range as far as money goes. I was comparing it to the Tamron but I have a Sigma 10-20 and is super sharp. I have never owned a Tamron so don't know what to expect. The sigma is $900 new on ebay where the Tamron is,$1300. All the reviews and videos I seen looks like the Sigma might be a better choice.

I just mean there are also the 70-300s, if you don't mind the aperture of your current lens but want (much) higher quality. More reach, especially if you consider FF in the future.

Heya,

Well, with that sort of photography, you're commonly stopping down and using panning and IS to get the look. The 55-250 STM would actually do that, for cheap, and is indistinguishable in terms of the image quality. Otherwise, I would look at a 70-200 F4L IS instead for $700-ish.

For portrait, none of these, get a 50 STM for cheap and you're set there. With saved money, get a flash, it will serve far more purpose in portrait than more glass.

No reason to get a FF body for what you're doing unless you spend even more money to get longer glass with IS.

Very best,

Glass.

Another lens to look at, if you really like the 300mm end of things, is a used 70-300mm L. The used prices have come way down.

The most affordable quality option as mentioned, is the EF-S 55-250.

Anyway, reinforcing the opinions that the lens is more of your bottleneck than your body. get a brand new 7D2 or 80D, and you will still be shooting through the same problematic lens.

Always go for glass over a body. If you want to do sports and portraits, you can get wider lens to make up for the crop factor.

The images from your "decent" camera & "crappy lens" look pretty good to me. What is it that you think you aren't getting from them?

PhotosGuy wrote in post #18361431
The images from your "decent" camera & "crappy lens" look pretty good to me. What is it that you think you aren't getting from them?

Sharpness. Also I find them to be noisy even at 100 ISO. Always need to correct noise on post.

I'm considering a used 70-200 f4 and save some money. I'll let you guys know my final decision. Thanks all for the feedback.

erikfig wrote in post #18361443
Sharpness. Also I find them to be noisy even at 100 ISO. Always need to correct noise on post.

They're pretty good.

I also think that IS "Mode 2" might give me more sharper panning and more keepers?

50D + 75-300 and can only upgrade one? Upgrade the 75-300 to pretty much anything else; even one of the newer models of the 55-250 would be more robust for a little bit of cash.

Are you sure that the version of the Sigma that you're seeing for $900 is the latest version? If I recall correctly, there are multiple iterations of that lens, some of which may be better than others. If that is the latest model, also triple check that you're not buying a gray market lens (lens not originally packaged for sale in the local market), if warranty/service is a worry to you.