400D Upgrade

[crum]

I'm looking to upgrade my current 400D to something a bit newer and better and am considering either the 50D or 7D. I've done a bit of searching on here and everyone seems to think spending the extra on the 7D is well worth it so I don't mind handing over that little bit extra.
What are the kit lenses avaliable with the 7D like? Being the 15-85mm, 18-135mm and the 18-200mm. I use my camera for a range of stuff such as bushwalking, motorsport photography and taking away with me on day trips and holidays. Would any of these be worth getting as a package or would I be better off just buying a body and looking for another lens?

[hus]

If I was fortunate enough to be be in your position I would get the body only and then get a quality lens.

[Tannin]

* 7D for sure. It is in a whole different league. The 50D is a decent machine - I use mine a lot - but the only reason people buy 50Ds these days is because they don't realise just how massive the difference is.

* 15-85:Well regarded, well made, good optics, very useful range of focal lengths, what's not to like? Not fast, of course, but if you want fast in a general-purpose zoom you will spend a lot more, sacrifice a lot of focal length range, and live with some extra weight and bulk. Certainly worth thinking about.

* 18-200: A lens that does everything. Badly. If you are going to buy a superzoom, don't waste your money on a 7D; your current 400D can already record better images than the 18-200 can capture.

* 18-135: Cheap. Better image quality than a superzoom, but not much better. Like the 18-200, does not feature a proper USM focus motor. Would be a bit of a waste of a perfectly good 7D. Still verging on pointless on a 50D as an upgrade lens. Would be perfectly suited as a decent, cheap first lens on a 1000D or similar. You have gone past that stage now or you wouldn't have started this thread.

* Body only. Go this way unless you want a 15-85. Looking at your mix of subjects, I reckon the 15-85 might actually be an excellent choice for you, but you decide.

[David]

Had a similar decision regarding the body upgrade from a 400D late last year. At that time with the price difference between the 50D and 7D being a 1,000 + two things decided it for me: One, the price difference and two the 7D does not take me to full frame.

For the extra 1,000 plus I would not get a full frame body so I decided at my level of experience etc I could not justify the extra money..better to wait and add that 1,000 towards a full frame body down the track OR a decent L series lens. I went with the 50D body and a 24 -105mm 4.0 L IS USM Lens.

What I got for my money was a significant upgrade on my 400D body and a very significant lens upgrade from the 400 kit lenses I started with.

I agree with Tony, no point in buying a much better body and then compromising the improvement with the body upgrade by buying second rate lenses with it. If you buy a 50D or 7D I would recommend going the body only path and then making a good investment in a decent lens to match up with the body quality upgrade, otherwise it is going to be like buying a new car and putting cheap retreads on the wheels.

I listen to people who tell me it is the LENS not the body that is most important in IQ and results so I tend towards the good body,great lens way of thinking about these decisions.

Good luck with the upgrade: you will have to find your own compromise unless you can afford both a 7D AND L series or fixed focal length lens/es. If you know what particular genre of photography you tend to focus on (mine is landscapes and seascapes) people will be able to help you choose a first upgrade lens AFTER you buy the body you have set your mind on.

[flash]

the only reason I settled on the 50d was price, if I could persuade the minister for finance to open the bank account a bit more I would have went the 7d, buy the goodies as you go along! the 50d is fantastic, the 7d is amazing, both excellent but 7d just a wee bit more so

[Clubmanmc]

buy the body only,

and save a little more for a 70-200 f2.8 great lens and deservedly should be in every ones kit..

as for the differences 50d v 7d

the vast majority of the goodies, that are worth the extra, are in stuff like the buffer, the focus system and the low light work... the video is so so

the focus system alone is worth it over the 50D if your doing fast moving targets, or low light long exposures... all the 19 points are cross type, ie they look for changes to contrast in both up and down and across, (the centre one goes eight ways), the 50D has a cross type only on the centre one...

M

[crum]

Cheers for all the replies. Certainly a lot for me to consider now. I did look at the 18-200mm as an upgrade for my 400D kit lenses and wasn't overly impressed with the results. Would something like the L series 24-105mm be a reasonable all round kind of lens? I know its not going to have a heap of zoom for out at the race track but the majority of photos I take are more so when I go walking, etc

[Tannin]

Superb lens, the 24-105, fantastic reach on a crop body, excellent all-rounder, but:

• 24mm is often nowhere near wide enough, so you need something like a 10-22 as well
• Even given a UWA to go with it, you will do a heap of lens-swapping and that gets very tedious. Best plan is to keep the 400D and use that for wide angle, the 7D and 24-105 for other stuff.
• At f/4, you don't get a particularly narrow depth of field for portraits and the like. It's OK, but not great. You could have a 24-70 instead, but then you don't get IS (and on the 24-105 the IS is brilliant) and you miss out on the 70-105 range.
• It is fairly large and heavy.
• Barrel distortion at 24mm is a problem. But it's gone by 27mm or so, and the optics are otherwise superb.

Will it suit you? Once again, you need to make your own decision. I hated mine at first, actually tried to sell it, but it grew and grew on me and now it is my most-used lens (not counting the big birding glass, of course). But I also carry an ultra-wide on another body. If you plan to sell the 400D, then you'd probably do better with a 15-85 - that's a much more usable range of focal lengths on a crop body.

[David]

+1 on needing a wider lens for landscapes to go with the 24-105MM : I had the Sigma 10-20mm at one time but swapped it for the 10-22mm Canon later because I am a landscape tog in the main. So if you do alot of landscapes down the track compliment your 24-105 with a wide angle lens down the 10-20 end. You could keep the 400D for landscapes and whack a wide angle on it permanently as an option.

You indicated you do a lot of walk about lens work and for my money the 24-105mm is perfect for that. It has a good if not fast focal length range on a crop sensor body and has the IS feature which has not let me down once yet hand held in most conditions.

As for the 70-200mm 2.8 mentioned, it has a bit of weight it in and would take some getting used to hand held and the IS version will cost you several hundred dollars if not a 1,000 more than the USM 2.8 or USM 4.0 versions. Great lenses all three, but the 2.8 versions are weighty to lug around from what I have seen.

Tony ? Over to you.

PS If money was not the issue I would have the 7D, the 10-22mm, 24-105mm IS USM and 70-200MM IS USM 2.8 in my kit and look at fixed focal length specialist lenses after that depending on what genre I had a penchant for.

[Ray Heath]

G'day crum

Why do you think you need to "upgrade"?

What do you imagine a "better" camera will do to improve your photography?

As for lenses stay away from zooms, primes are sharper, brighter and have larger maximum apertures so are more versatile. Forget about updating camera bodies it's all about lenses.

[JorgD]

Hi Crum,

despite the 24-105 L being a great lens, on a crop factor sensor it really is in no mans land. It is neither wide at an effective 38 mm, nor is it particularly telephoto at only 168.

I have a 7D which I upgraded from the 40D and the lenses I use the most are (all Canon):

10 - 22 because for landscape and buildings and indoors, I often need a really wide field of view to get it all in. This lens gets used a lot.

17-55 f2.8 for low light photography where I need a bright lens. Also this is the bread and butter middle zoom great for parties and social gatherings. Even in dim light, the f2.8 focuses well due to its brightness. Only drawback of this lens is that it sucks a lot of dust in and thus you can see a ton of dust inside the lens. Canon claims that it does not influence the picture quality because the dust is sufficiently far from the sensor. When shooting the occasional movie and panning around outdoors, the light strikes the lens at a bad angle and you can see the hundreds of little dust particles just for a moment. This is not a problem when taking stills though.

70 - 200 L f4 IS I went for the f4 over the f2.8 because of the weight and the image quality. I don't want to lug twice the weight around when I don't need to and the f4 takes much sharper photos. This may no longer be true with the 70 - 200 f2.8 Mk2 just released, but it was so at the time when I bought the lens 2.5 years ago. Plus I don't have a need for the ultra short dof of a 2.8. I generally shoot at 5.8 or 8, thus whether the lens is a f4 or f2.8 to start with does not really matter all that much.

My mother has the 18-200 and I keep thinking about whether I should buy one or not, because despite all what is being said, the photos that it produces are actually quite good and for travel it would be so convenient. Even though it focuses slightly slower than a USM lens, I can assure you that the time it takes to focus is much quicker than the time it takes for me to change lenses and then focus with a faster lens.

If you are happy with the feel of the 400D, why not look at the 550D? I would look at the pro's and con's of the 7D v's the 550D and at this stage would not consider the 50D. 550D is a fair bit cheaper and also has 18MP and movie mode. I know of at least 1 professional photographer that uses a 550D and L glass and never had a complaint about the quality of the images.

[Shelley]

Hi Crum,
I upgraded from the 400d to the 50d before the 7d was on the scene. It was worth it for me as it is a more solid camera, more features which I use. So I think upgrading from the 400d is worthwhile, but what too is the question. I think I would have gone for the 7d then if it was around, but it wasn't.

I was all set to buy the 7d a couple of weeks ago, when a good photographer who happens to be family said to me "Shelley, 3 years from now will you still be wrapped in the 7d as much as you would be with a new lens bought now". The answer was a simple no - the lens I would still be wrapped in and probably keep for years.

Not to say you shouldn't buy the 7d, but lens are for quite a few years, whereas you change bodies. So I went out bought another "L" lens instead of the 7d. I still want the 7d and it doesn't help when Tannin says all these nice things about it. Once I have my collection of "L" lens, or if my 50d carks it, I will buy another camera.

[debs]

I can understand what Shelley is saying. I upgraded from the 400d to the 7d and a couple of weeks ago I had buyers remorse, I regretted buying the 7d and thought I should have bought a nice lens as I was still happy with my 400d 3 years after buying it.

Now, I've decided that I do love my 7d, I like the weight, the solid build etc. Not quite happy with the photos i'm taking but I'm sure after a few months of learning how to use it properly and getting off auto I will (hopefully) learn to love it more.

[David]

I think the dismissal of the 24-105mm as being in 'no mans land' is narrow minded to be polite about it especially since the OP never indicated a need to go wide *as a landscaper would* or telefoto like a birding or sports photographer might. If Crum said yeah I want to do landscapes specifically or birding or sports photography specifically you might argue against the 24-105mm but Crum has not indicated a penchant for either. I would not dismiss this lens in a hurry as a first general first up walk about lens of high quality with the IS feature as a bonus.

[crum]

Certainly a lot of options to consider. The 24-105mm seems to have a reasonable range which seems more suited as I don't really use the camera for 1 specific thing.

I might go and have a look at both the camera and lens before committing to buy anything. It might even be worth just buying the lens for now and see how that goes, mind you I've never been 100% happy with the photos the 400D has taken from day 1. I don't think 1 person has regretted buying their 7D so it might be worth spending the money as I will more than likely never have to upgrade again. Same applies with lenses

[etherial]

I don't regret my purchases (I upgraded from 450D with kit lenses). The 7D with 24-105 is a great combination IMO.

[Showipix]

Ive upgraded from a 400D with standard kit lenses and after alot of research (and help) went with a 40D (bought 2nd hand from an AP member), a 70-200 F4 L lens (from DWI) and last weekend a 24-105 L lens again off another member.

My next one im saving up for is a Tamron 90mm macro lens - then thats it! LOL

No looking back now and i have already seen the results in the quality of the pictures - but still learning how to use it all to its fullest potential! (do we ever stop learning!)

[JorgD]

@David sorry for making the narrow minded comment about the 24-105. When the OP mentioned he was looking for a lens for bushwalking and motorsport I drew the conclusion that the lens would be used for either landscape shots that made themselves available while he was walking, or potentially animals that he encounters while he was walking, like birds, insects, snakes, etc. So I misread his needs, that he would be doing landscapes. I did not read into his statement that he required the lens to be a walking aid.

Motorsport generally also requires either a reasonable telephoto ability (unless you work in the pits), as you generally are a little way away from the action or otherwise a wide angle to capture the whole race track and atmosphere at once.

I was just trying to use some common sense here on what type of photography may be involved while doing bushwalking and motorsport, but I admit I may have been wrong.

[David]

@David sorry for making the narrow minded comment about the 24-105. When the OP mentioned he was looking for a lens for bushwalking and motorsport I drew the conclusion that the lens would be used for either landscape shots that made themselves available while he was walking, or potentially animals that he encounters while he was walking, like birds, insects, snakes, etc. So I misread his needs, that he would be doing landscapes. I did not read into his statement that he required the lens to be a walking aid.

Motorsport generally also requires either a reasonable telephoto ability (unless you work in the pits), as you generally are a little way away from the action or otherwise a wide angle to capture the whole race track and atmosphere at once.

I was just trying to use some common sense here on what type of photography may be involved while doing bushwalking and motorsport, but I admit I may have been wrong.

No problem mate: We all offer views from our reading of what is there and have a bias one way or another probably from our own expereinces: I think different opinions and experiences are good for the OP to consider...

[JorgD]

I couldn't agree more David. The strength of any forum is to read about peoples experiences and opinions to help us make a better decision.