Should I upgrade my lens

[verfnew]

I currently have a Canon EOS1000D and am about to purchase the Canon EOS600D body.
The standed lens that came with the 1000D is the 18-55mm lens. My question is shoud I upgrade this lens and if so what to. I also have the Canon 60mm Macro and a Tamron 70-300mm tele.
Thanks in advance
Vernon.
Casino, NSW

[Wayne]

If you just want to snap away, what you have is covering most of the commonly used focal lengths. If you need low light performance, fast AF, super sharp or wide aperture, then perhaps yes depending upon your preferred subject matter. One thing is for sure, and that is no one lens covers all bases, so you will need to decide what purpose it needs to serve.

Often the upgrade options are dictated by budget, and pro glass is seldom cheap.

[fillum]

Welcome Vernon. I'd personally not upgrade any lenses at the moment. I'd concentrate on getting to know the new body first, then down the track a bit have a look at your lens performance to determine if it is limiting in any way for what you shoot.

(Of course, if you can get a super-good deal by purchasing a lens at the same time as the body that would complicate the decision a bit ).


Cheers.

[dredi1975]

Hi,
you didnt say what do you usually photograph, as mentioned above your current set of lenses covers most of the used focal lenghts, so specify what do you like photographing and the budget you have and then we will be able to answer your question more precise.
Cheers
Maciek

[verfnew]

Thanks to all who have replied.
My photo interests are flowers, Old colonial buildings (Police Stations, Court Houses, Banks, Churches etc., Landscapes and some wildlife.
Thanks.
vernon

[Redbaron]

As mentioned, I'd get to know the new body before I bought any more lenses - if the current range does the job with the 1000D, it will still be enough with the 600D.

[pellicle]

what do you feel to be missing in what you have? Or are you just hoping a better lens will take better pictures?

[verfnew]

The 18-55mm is the lens that came with the camera and I am happy with the results when I get it right. I think of it as more of a kit lens and thought with a better (read dearer) quality lens I might get better quality images.
Thanks.
Vernon.

[kiwi]

Post some photos and let's see

But yes, spend 1000s on lenses and bodies, lights and tripods. Why not.

[reaction]

I would ask why you want to go 1000D->600D.
You don't really get much more in features, both are entry level, so is it really worth it?
What will 600D get you the 1000D won't?

[KeeFy]

I would ask why you want to go 1000D->600D.
You don't really get much more in features, both are entry level, so is it really worth it?
What will 600D get you the 1000D won't?

More mega pickles, video mode, 1 stop iso, slightly bigger body, swiverly screen thingy. I had a 1000D for a while for a little project i tried and it is definitely a capable body.

Get more lenses! Can't have enough of those! I'd suggest a 10-22 since you like buildings or if you want to go 1 notch higher a 17mm tilt shift lens. 90mm f2.8 tamron for a macro lens. 150-500 sigma for wildlife.

[verfnew]

The main reason that I went to the 600D was for the greater mega pixles as with the 100D the largest that I can get the photos printed at 240 dpi is approx 16 X 10 inches. With the 600D the print size increases to 21.5 X 14.5 inches.
I don't use the video mode and really wish it wasn't even there as I feel I am paying for something that I will never use.
I have the 60 mm Canon macro lens.
I toyed with purchasing the Canon EOS 5D MK II body for a while with all it's bells and whistles but thought at my stage of development I would probably just use the bells and not the whistles.
Thanks.
Vern.

[Ms Monny]

Personally, I have the 60D with the kit lenses that you have. I actually don't mind the 18-55mm, maybe a bit soft but I hate the 55-250 due to the softness of the lens.

If you are happy with the results of the 18-55, then by all means keep it and use it for practicing. It looks like you have the range of lenses covered, except maybe an ultra-wide, like a 10-20mm (that is what I want next! ).

[KeeFy]

Personally, I have the 60D with the kit lenses that you have. I actually don't mind the 18-55mm, maybe a bit soft but I hate the 55-250 due to the softness of the lens.

If you are happy with the results of the 18-55, then by all means keep it and use it for practicing. It looks like you have the range of lenses covered, except maybe an ultra-wide, like a 10-20mm (that is what I want next! ).

I never had a problem with the 55-250 or 18-55 being soft. In fact the 18-55 was was sharp wide open and tack sharp when stopped down 1 stop. The 55-250 was sharp as well but the only issue was heavy vignetting.

Not the best examples but



55-250 on 500D, 1/20s, f5.6, ISO200.



Exposure Time (1 / Shutter Speed) 1/125 second ===> 0.008 second
Lens F-Number / F-Stop 56/10 ===> ƒ/5.6
ISO Speed Ratings 1600



Exposure 1.3
Aperture f/11.0
Focal Length 250 mm
ISO Speed 100


The 55-250 is more than a capable lens, unless you're doing lowlight work.

[pellicle]

The 18-55mm is the lens that came with the camera and I am happy with the results when I get it right. I think of it as more of a kit lens and thought with a better (read dearer) quality lens I might get better quality images.
Thanks.
Vernon.

its like ovens ... did you bake the good food or did the oven?

Most kit zooms are quite good optical quality these days. You might try playing with a adapted manual focus lens which will give you a much faster aperture for little money. That can be quite educational.

Try an OM adaptor and say a 28mm and 50mm OM lens that should only set you back $100 for the lot

[William]

Quote Vern : The main reason that I went to the 600D was for the greater mega pixles as with the 100D the largest that I can get the photos printed at 240 dpi is approx 16 X 10 inches. With the 600D the print size increases to 21.5 X 14.5 inches

I dont think thats right, You can go a lot bigger , I've seen one of mine printed on Canvas at 300dpi using my 30D (8.2mp) 2mtrs x 1mtr , I have a couple hanging on the wall 24inches x 16inches , No probs

[pellicle]

The main reason that I went to the 600D was for the greater mega pixles as with the 100D the largest that I can get the photos printed at 240 dpi is approx 16 X 10 inches. With the 600D the print size increases to 21.5 X 14.5 inches.

well there's the issue of "pixel quality" too. I mean some images scale well and others don't. I agree that printed at native pixel outputs that you'll get more pixels with wich to print. However some images are clean enough to upscale more. For instance I just did some testing of my GH1 and a FD50mm f1.4 lens with a 5D Mk1 and an OM100mm f2.8 lens. At 1.4 (to get the same DoF as the Full Frame camera) the image would not be sharp enough (if that was the main criteria) to get away with full native printing. The 5D image however would definately tolerate upsize (say the equivalent of printing at 150dpi from the native pixels)

Larger images tend to be viewed from greater distance too ... meaning that 150dpi printing can be enough.

Personally I'd be quite satisfied with the images I get from my old 20D when it comes to pixels.

[William]

What do you mean by "Pixel Quality" ? Maybe just explain a little in laymans terms , I print at 300dpi which is what the guy doing my prints requires for Fuji Pearl paper , Just ordered more today at 20 x 30 inches , Sharp as!! from the 30D

[pellicle]

What do you mean by "Pixel Quality" ? Maybe just explain a little in laymans terms , I print at 300dpi which is what the guy doing my prints requires for Fuji Pearl paper , Just ordered more today at 20 x 30 inches , Sharp as!! from the 30D

ok, sorry about that.

Lets say you have an image of 4000 x 3000, when you see it on the screen you will be scaling it down because a screen is typically 1600x1200 or smaller. So when you view it at 100% if the image looks sharp still then its bound to be sharp.

For example this image:


at 100% looks like this:


which is nice and sharp, however if it looked like this:


it might still look good scaled down but the pixel level quality may be considered to be low. In this instance caused by the lens being too soft.

Another source of quality at the pixel level may be channel noise. I've got a discussion of noise on an old page of mine here.

The first image segment will likely upscale nicely but the second would look less clear (if clarity was your criteria as it would perhaps be more so in landscape than portraiture)

Now back to that 4000 x 3000 pixels, thats the native level of pixels which comes from the camera. If your printer prints to a native 300dpi then you would be able to make a print (4000 / 300 =) 13.3 inches by 10 inches.

Now some printers can print at different res, so you are able to perhaps print the image at 150dpi. This would essentially scale the image up in the printer system for you because it prints the pixels at a bigger dimension / spacing.

Alternatively you can upscale the image x2 (making it 8000 x 6000) and then print that at 300dpi and attain the same effect. I have done quite a bit of experimentation on this and find that for images that people will stand back from (bigger ones) 150 dpi is fine. Next time you see a bus with an ad on the back walk up and check out how big those dots are in the printing.

I think you may find this article on my blog interesting reading.

:-)

PS, if your capture has enough data then what may look like it sucks at pixel level (look at some drum scans) will smooth out on the print. That is also discussed in the above blog post

[pellicle]

, Sharp as!! from the 30D

ohh, and I agree ... 30D is almost identical to the 20D, both quite capable of producing sharp images