[fad2101]

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).

[Brightcolours]

[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='' />.

[fad2101]

Thanks for that, you are correct the old tele I have is the 75 - 300. I must admit I am inclining towards the 60D with the 18-55 f2.8, and to start saving for a better telephoto.

[Guest]

[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1290709812' post='4439']

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).



[/quote]

Depth of field at 85mm 5.6 is about the same as 2.8 at 55mm. So usefulness for portraiture is about equal. In any event, if you are careful with your backgrounds both lenses are very good for portraits. Most of my myanmar portraits were shot with a 17-85 see here: www.photography-in-style.de

If you like to travel and look for an allround lens I'd rather get the 15-85mm and supplement it with a bright prime for low light shots, where you need a fast shutter speed. You said you like landscapes, then the little extra wide of the 15-85 will be very welcome. For landscpaes f/2.8 is a waste of money, as you need to stop down anyway for greater depth of field. With family shots the extra flexibility of the 15-85 comes in very handy, too. Only get 17-55 if you know that you need to zoom in low light, otherwise an even brighter prime (30mm 1.4/ 28 1.8/50.18) will serve you much better when combined with a 15-85.

[Guest]

[quote name='jenbenn' timestamp='1290716162' post='4442']

Depth of field at 85mm 5.6 is about the same as 2.8 at 55mm.

[/quote]



Sorry, that's not exactly true. With equal magnification, difference in DOF is quite significant.

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='Lomskij' timestamp='1290723839' post='4446']

Sorry, that's not exactly true. With equal magnification, difference in DOF is quite significant.

[/quote]

Also, the 15-85 at 55mm is about f5. The 17-55 at 55mm is f2.8 (and the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 at 50mm too). A very big difference.

[genotypewriter]

[quote name='bigf' timestamp='1290705630' post='4438']

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?

[/quote]

First... what matters is the end image that's created. What affects this the most are two things:



* Lenses

* Sensor size



Of course, difference between different sensor designs (but same size) have a say too but the sensor size makes a bigger difference. That's why even the old and used 5Ds are selling for quite a bit of money, compared to a much newer but used APS-C camera.



So forget the 7D if you can't afford the lenses. Save your money and go for a FF later on. Also don't get the 17-40L because as Brightcolours also said... it's c**p. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



GTW

[popo]

As owner and user of 7D + 15-85 that is a combination I find very useful in a variety of situations. It has the widest angle possibility of the shortlisted lenses and I find the AF in it quite nippy. Personally I'm not a fan of the zoom restricted f/2.8 standard lenses, preferring to go big aperture prime where needed, for example you can throw in a 50mm f/1.8 for not a lot extra.



Not sure about deciding between the 60D and 7D though. You just have to decide on the feature set you think is better for you.



The 17-40 does one one plus, if combined with the 7D it'll be an all sealed package. But having used the lens it isn't one I'm keen on either (at least on crop sensor).

[Sylvain]

[quote name='popo' timestamp='1290760508' post='4458']

As owner and user of 7D + 15-85 that is a combination I find very useful in a variety of situations. It has the widest angle possibility of the shortlisted lenses and I find the AF in it quite nippy. Personally I'm not a fan of the zoom restricted f/2.8 standard lenses, preferring to go big aperture prime where needed, for example you can throw in a 50mm f/1.8 for not a lot extra.

[/quote]



I tend to agree with popo. After a while, I have come to find the 17-55 rather frustrating to use despite its almost flawless optics. Not wide enough, not long enough, bulky,heavy, poorly built... and had I kept my EOS, I would certainly opt for the 15-85 with perhaps a fast prime next to it.And why not an L prime.



Consequently, IMHO, 17-40 is just a waste of time. Even shorter, slower, non stabilised, really not my cup of tea. And I wouldn't even regard it as an "investment" for later full frame projects either.



I would probably go 60D + 15-85 as there is a fair chance I'd want to go full frame later (reasonably or not, this desire will come <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> ). So let's not shell out too much money on a crop camera, should we <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



Hope I'm not making it too despairing.



Greetings,

S.

[fad2101]

[quote name='Sylvain' timestamp='1290776364' post='4474']

I tend to agree with popo. After a while, I have come to find the 17-55 rather frustrating to use despite its almost flawless optics. Not wide enough, not long enough, bulky,heavy, poorly built... and had I kept my EOS, I would certainly opt for the 15-85 with perhaps a fast prime next to it.And why not an L prime.



Consequently, IMHO, 17-40 is just a waste of time. Even shorter, slower, non stabilised, really not my cup of tea. And I wouldn't even regard it as an "investment" for later full frame projects either.



I would probably go 60D + 15-85 as there is a fair chance I'd want to go full frame later (reasonably or not, this desire will come <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':blink:' /> ). So let's not shell out too much money on a crop camera, should we <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



Hope I'm not making it too despairing.



Greetings,

S.

[/quote]