11-25-2010, 06:30 PM
[quote name='bigf' timestamp='1290705630' post='4438']
Some thoughts please....
I have an Eos 350D with the standard lens, as well as a EF 70-300, which dates back to my old RT.
I am looking to upgrade to either a 60D or 7D.
My question is am I better to invest in the cheaper camera and a better Lens like either the EFS 18-55 f2.8 IS USM, or the 17-40 f4 USML. or go for the more expensive camera with the EFS 18-55 IS, or the EFS EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM?
I will upgrade the telephoto at some point....
I am an enthusiastic amateur, who cut his teeth in the days of darkrooms, chemicals, and SLRs with no TTL metering. My main interests are now Landscapes,and I do sport occasionally. (plus all the family nonsense).
[/quote]
I am guessing you actually have an old EF 75-300? The RT pre-dates the 70-300 by a decade at least.
The cameras are very the same, it does not matter a lot of you choose the 60D or the 7D. So... unless you have a specific reason, the 60D is great and good enough.
The 17-40mm f4 L USM does not make all that much sense to me as standard zoom on an APS-C. It is meant as a ultra wide angle on full frame 135 format. It lacks IS too, so to me the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM seems to be a better match (with 55mm and f2.8 it also can be used for portrait shots).
The 18-55 IS is a nice budget lens, with a good copy pretty impressive results can be had. But it is no match to the 17-55 f2.8 IS. The Canon 15-85mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM is a good lens for its type, but I would never consider one... It does not open up enough to make the long end have much use (portrait focal lengths without being able to go past f5.6).
Another lens to consider, budget wise, could be the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 EX DC OS HSM. It is pretty much as good as the Canon 17-55mm f2.8 optically, also offers IS and silent motor, but is a bit more affordable.
The old 75-300 lenses are not super, which shows in the digital age, where we tend to look at much bigger enlargements. At the long end it lacks contrast and resolution. You can use it, obviously, and see if it gives you results you can live with. The Canon EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM is a lot better optically. Also the cheap budget EF-S 55-250mm IS will outperform your tele zoom in the long end. And the Tamron SP 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 VC USD also is a strong contender in the affordable tele zoom range, with very sharp optics.
Of course, the Canon EF 70-200mm f4 L USM and IS USM are also great lenses, the IS version being super sharp and both of them offering rather attractive bokeh. But they are white (well, white-ish) and totally suck in the 200-300mm range <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />.
Some thoughts please....
I have an Eos 350D with the standard lens, as well as a EF 70-300, which dates back to my old RT.
I am looking to upgrade to either a 60D or 7D.
My question is am I better to invest in the cheaper camera and a better Lens like either the EFS 18-55 f2.8 IS USM, or the 17-40 f4 USML. or go for the more expensive camera with the EFS 18-55 IS, or the EFS EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM?
I will upgrade the telephoto at some point....
I am an enthusiastic amateur, who cut his teeth in the days of darkrooms, chemicals, and SLRs with no TTL metering. My main interests are now Landscapes,and I do sport occasionally. (plus all the family nonsense).
[/quote]
I am guessing you actually have an old EF 75-300? The RT pre-dates the 70-300 by a decade at least.
The cameras are very the same, it does not matter a lot of you choose the 60D or the 7D. So... unless you have a specific reason, the 60D is great and good enough.
The 17-40mm f4 L USM does not make all that much sense to me as standard zoom on an APS-C. It is meant as a ultra wide angle on full frame 135 format. It lacks IS too, so to me the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM seems to be a better match (with 55mm and f2.8 it also can be used for portrait shots).
The 18-55 IS is a nice budget lens, with a good copy pretty impressive results can be had. But it is no match to the 17-55 f2.8 IS. The Canon 15-85mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM is a good lens for its type, but I would never consider one... It does not open up enough to make the long end have much use (portrait focal lengths without being able to go past f5.6).
Another lens to consider, budget wise, could be the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 EX DC OS HSM. It is pretty much as good as the Canon 17-55mm f2.8 optically, also offers IS and silent motor, but is a bit more affordable.
The old 75-300 lenses are not super, which shows in the digital age, where we tend to look at much bigger enlargements. At the long end it lacks contrast and resolution. You can use it, obviously, and see if it gives you results you can live with. The Canon EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM is a lot better optically. Also the cheap budget EF-S 55-250mm IS will outperform your tele zoom in the long end. And the Tamron SP 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 VC USD also is a strong contender in the affordable tele zoom range, with very sharp optics.
Of course, the Canon EF 70-200mm f4 L USM and IS USM are also great lenses, the IS version being super sharp and both of them offering rather attractive bokeh. But they are white (well, white-ish) and totally suck in the 200-300mm range <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />.