Body or lens?

[svlord]

I am currently using a Canon 1000D and a sigma 18-250.

I was thinking of upgrading to a Canon 60D.

When looking it was suggested that maybe as I enjoy landscape photography I should keep using the 1000D and purchase a Sigma 8-16 lens.

I can afford to buy either but not both at present.

Any advice?
Stuart

[ricktas]

my advice would be to post some photos on AP, so we can see the standard of your photography. Not much use upgrading your body or lenses if you don't have the basics of composition, exposure, etc down first. It is the photographer who takes the photo, not the camera/lens. Yes a better body or lens can improve your results, but only if you know how and why in the first place.

The 1000D is a great bit of kit, and if you are ready I would suggest upgrading to high quality lenses first. Remember a good lens will last a lifetime, whereas a camera body is 'disposable' in this digital era.

[Tannin]

You have a body that is capable of taking as good a photograph as any APS-C body on the market. It's a bit light on for bells and whistles, bit it still delivers excellent picture quality. But your lens is mediocre at best. You could get a lens that is better at the wide-normal range (Canon 15-85, Sigma 17-70); a better telephoto lens (70-300, 70-200, 100-400); or a lens that does things you can't do at all with your current rig - macro (Canon 60mm, virtually any of the 90, 100, and 105mm macro lenses); or fast normal for portraits and indoor low light work (Canon 17-55, Sigma 18-50, Tamron 17-50); or, best of all, a wide-angle lens (Canon 10-22, Sigma 10-20, Sigma 8-16).

[Danielepaolo]

Buy the lens!
i) you will get more benefit from getting the wide angle lens for landscape photography than upgrading the camera
ii) you will get improved IQ (sharpness, contrast) from the better lens
ii) The body will fall in price but the lens (a good lens) will hold its value

It would have helped if we knew a bit more about you though.

Anyway, perhaps in your mind it is a toss of the coin decision. In cricket parlance we say "when you can't decide between batting or bowling when you win the toss then 9 times out of 10 you bat and the tenth time you think about bowling but you bat anyway". I think that just as well applies here: "when you can't decide between a new lens or a body then when you win the toss 9 times out of 10 you buy the lens and the tenth time you think about a new body but you buy the lens anyway"

[ktoopi]

I would also go for a better lens! Having gone through your dilemma about 12 months ago I went for the new camera. Even though I love my camera, in hindsight I would have gotten more value from upgrading lenses first.

[nightbringer]

Get the 8-16mm. You will love playing with the distortion and the gigantic viewing angles

[svlord]

Thanks for that, I am starting to change my mind from the body to the lens.

[svlord]

I don't have enough posts yet to put up any photos. I will when I can, thanks.

[ricktas]

I don't have enough posts yet to put up any photos. I will when I can, thanks.

Yes you do. Once you have a post count of 1 (one) you can start posting photos onto AP.

[Speedway]

Go the lens, the 1000D will handle it well, also although a lot knock the 18-250 sigma I find it very capable for sports and general walkabout use and far better than most kit lenses.
Keith.

[crafty1tutu]

I would go for the new lens. I have the Canon 10-22 lens and love the wide angled view which doesn't seem to distort the horizon. I know people who still use a basic Canon 350D that get wonderful photos with a good wide angled lens.

[screamer]

While I would normally recomend a lens, the 60D is a dam fine camera. One option you might consider is panoramic landscapes. I've started doing them with my 24-105mm and I am getting some very nice shots. Not as versatile as a wide angle - but something to consider.

[darkc]

The lens for sure

[fabian628]

I am currently using a Canon 1000D and a sigma 18-250.

I was thinking of upgrading to a Canon 60D.

When looking it was suggested that maybe as I enjoy landscape photography I should keep using the 1000D and purchase a Sigma 8-16 lens.

I can afford to buy either but not both at present.

Any advice?
Stuart

You haven't really said what the 60D would do for you! It does do high iso better, have video, more MP and flip out screen (also better ergonomics, bigger more solid body). However if you are not in need of these features, the lens will provide some really good photos. A 1000D with a good lens is going to be much better than an expensive body and a poor lens. the sigma looks like a nice lens, I used the 10-22 on my 1000D, worked very nicely also.

[FallingHorse]

I would go for the lens too.... it is exactly what I have done. I still have my 1000D which I have planned on upgrading for some time but other emergencies have always popped up and I am yet to upgrade it. I do use the Sigma 10-20mm lens and the 70-200mmL 2.8 IS on my 1000D. I have mostly used mine for sport but got the 10-20 because lately I am enjoying landscape when I don't have to go to the races.
Good glass will last you many years - but new camera bodies come out every year which is why I decided to go for the better glass and worry about the body upgrade when finances allow it.

[Mark L]

It's a dilemma Stuart. I had some older EF lens from my film days. Needed a DSLR body. I went for the 60D 'cause, a) it's up to date and it's my first DSLR, and most importantly b) anything less didn't feel solid (or big) enough in my hands (I have big hands, and was used to a heavy camera). Now that I have the camera, I'm craving better lens, however I am pleased I bought the 60D.
If you're using a tripod a lot for your landscapes, then the feel of camera in hands isn't so important. Go into a shop and have a feel of the 60D. Then, like me, start saving for lens.

[svlord]

You haven't really said what the 60D would do for you!

I think a lack of photographic maturity thinking the body would get better shots. Thanks heaps for making me stop and think!