New Body or Lenses

I am tempted to use Christmas money to buy a 40D to replace my 2-year old XT. But I am also tempted to buy a used 30D and/or add a nice lens or two instead.

Help me decide?

I do a lot of scenic landscapes. I have done a little bit of Senior portrait stuff and a little bit of sports.

I have the 50 1.4, 85 1.8, 28-105 USM, 70-300 IS, and the Sigma 17-70.

Nic

Which lenses are you interested in? What's your total budget?

Mark

I like the 70-200L but honestly I don't know if I would use that range for a whole lot.

Let's say a $1200 budget!

nicshow wrote in post #4420237
I am tempted to use Christmas money to buy a 40D to replace my 2-year old XT. But I am also tempted to buy a used 30D and/or add a nice lens or two instead.

Help me decide?

I do a lot of scenic landscapes. I have done a little bit of Senior portrait stuff and a little bit of sports.

I have the 50 1.4, 85 1.8, 28-105 USM, 70-300 IS, and the Sigma 17-70.

Nic

I would go with the Canon 10-22mm and the 17-40mm f/4L... Those are the two lenses on my wishlist, as I myself like to do alot of Landscapes and Cityscapes.

I just got the 30D and trying to sell my XT. I love it. I think you got a decent lens line up. Better focusing along with other things, the 30D or 40D would be a good decision in my eyes

I'm in the same boat as you, I have a couple year old XT and want to get a 40D but I don't know if i can justify upgrading or just buying a 50 F/1.4 and being happy...

I don't do alot (if any really) landscapes... but what people tell me what works well is using a 70-200L F4 (IS) and splice scene's together in PS or other software. It usually yields crisp, good tonal range and better overall IQ due to the fact you will be working with much larger files (thus printing/posting will be in a smaller form).

That's a tight budget for a body and a good lens, much less a body and two lenses. Figure anywhere from $625 to $700 for a used 30D depending on the condition and use, and that leaves you about $500 - $575 for a lens or lenses. So, you'll need to be looking at Tamron, Sigma or Canon non-L's, and for better advice, you really need to be thinking about the focal length you'll use and whether you want a zoom or primes.

Mark

Yes, I think realistically it's either a used 30d and one lens or no body and one or two lens OR a new 40d

nicshow wrote in post #4420340
Yes, I think realistically it's either a used 30d and one lens or no body and one or two lens OR a new 40d

Or a used 20D. I've seen these start to go for less than $500 in good condition.

My question really is "If I'm going to spend $1200 for something, what is the smartest way given what I already own?"

I'd love the 40D but perhaps investing in better glass is the smartest thing to do though I love the Sigma and I use it (that range) way more than anything else.

If you are happy with the IQ of the XT....Get some Great Glass...And wait a year or so for used 40D at a better price point.

I liked the idea of the 10-22 for your use; it's my most used lens when I am not shooting sports. For your use a used 20D or 30D will be fine and a much better investment than the 40D which will drop in value dramatically in a short period of time.

Personally I'd sell the 18-55, 28-105, and Sigma and put it towards a Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS even before I'd upgrade my body. The 10-22, 17-55, 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8 and your 70-300 make a great bag of glass.

What sports are you shooting? That will make a big difference whether the AF speed and fps of a 20/30/40D will really help those images. The next $900 or so that you have to spend might be a good time to pick up a used 135 prime or 70-200 non IS for your sports depending on what you are shooting.

*Considering how little you will get for your XT it might make sense to keep it with a second lens attached. Not having to change lenses frequently is an incredible luxury as well as a backup.

Definately a new lens. I'm surprised you do landscapes with only the lenses you have.

Consider the Canon 17-40, Sigma 10-22 or Canon 10-22, Tamron 17-35 (f2.8?) or 17-55 f 2.8 IS.

RedHot wrote in post #4424412
Definately a new lens. I'm surprised you do landscapes with only the lenses you have.

Consider the Canon 17-40, Sigma 10-22 or Canon 10-22, Tamron 17-35 (f2.8?) or 17-55 f 2.8 IS.

Why get that lens when they make the 17-50 F/2.8 (although it is a crop factor only lens, the equivalent of an EF-S)