Upgrading from 40D.Should I & what if...?

M

magirus

Messages
568
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all. I've recently come into a little money and can upgrade from my 40D if I wish to. I started back into photography with a 40D about 15 months ago, and have been using a Sigma 10-20, and a Tamron 28-300 VC. I thought I would use a couple of decent zooms until I had a good idea of what primes to get, if indeed my skills would merit any more expense. Well I think I can justify moving upwards so I have a question or two. If invest in a 7D will I still get images as good I do with the 40D with the zooms? Or will I need better glass from the outset with this body? I would like to continue using the zooms as general use lenses, as I find them handy as "walkabouts", depending on my "focal length" mood. Ideally I would like to keep the 40D for using with the zooms, and get primes for the 7D as funds permit. Thanks in advance for any advice.:)
 
It will take identical photos. Simply less noise. And if you zoom in more you will see the limitations of your lenses more.

I'd consider something like 24-70 F2.8 and/or 70-200mm f4 or f2.8 - will give you a much bigger upgrade IMO.
 
Dave Stone said:
I would say keep the 40D and invest in some high quality glass. Maybe a 100-400 &/or 24-105.
Click to expand...

I have a 40D with these two lens and it gives cracking results!
I also have a Sigma 10-20 for the occassional wide angle shot.
Obviously lens choice is VERY dependent on use-mine is mainly airshow, motor sport and the usual family, holiday shots etc!!

I find the two L lens fantastic for this.

I am planning an upgrade to a 7D later in the year after prices soften(and maybe cashback?????)

Conversley if I was primarily doing portrait/wedding/landscape I would upgrade to a 5DII and would own different glass(17-40f4L 70-200f2.8L) it really is horses for courses!!

Having said that good glass is a priority!!

Hope this is of some help!!
 
I also have the 40D and it takes great photos with good lenses - I use the Canon 10-22, 17-55 and 24-105L. However I was considering simplifying things a bit and getting the 7D with 15-85 kit and maybe a fast prime. Main advantage of the 7D is the focussing.
 
Invest in glass.

Canon 24-105L IS is a good 'everyday' lens, and something like a 70-200 L or 100-400 for reach. Depends how much money you have to spend.

I'd rather have 10 million really sharp pixels, than 18 million slightly fuzzy ones.
 
I'd agree with others that the 40D is a very good camera and top end glass will probably be a bigger benefit than a new body. I used to shoot with a pair of 40Ds then upgrade one to a 1DsmkII for portrait work and the other to a 50D for wildlife and macros. To be totally honest I'm not convinced that the 50D was worth the extra money - I've yet to get any shots that wouldn't have been just as good on a 40D. I've not tried a 7D so can't comment on it, but reports don't suggest that it's a great leap forward. I'd rather shoot with a good lens and a cheap body than a cheap lens on a top end body.
 
I agree with others, 40D is already an excellent camera, I would definitely use the money to build up the lens collection. Start buying L lenses :D
 
henryf4 said:
I agree with others, 40D is already an excellent camera, I would definitely use the money to build up the lens collection. Start buying L lenses :D
Click to expand...

on the upgrade towards a 40d myself and there it has to stop:'(
 
I'm also a 40d owner. At the moment I have the Canon EF-S 17-85mm / Sigma 10-20mm / Canon 50mm 1.8 & Canon75-200mm.

Unless I upgrade to full frame at some point in the future I'm keeping the 40D in favour of some decent glass which would also be worthy in the future.
 
Would agree with all above, lenses are the way to go :thumbs:

You mention primes in your original thread, I recently purchased a 300 F4 IS and it has changed the way I look at a shot (hopefully for the better :lol:) and I think improved it. I'm very pleased with the lens and have had some cracking results with it :thumbs:

Good luck with your search
 
By all means get some L zooms to replace your Tamron, but if you have the money I would also advise to pick up at least one prime.

The reason is this will allow you to experiment with thin Depth Of Field, dramatically isolating your subject from the background, which may be challenging with slower zooms. Also primes are typically sharper than zooms, often even "L" zooms. Finally they allow you to take picture in low light without flash.

For a "normal" prime, I'd advise the Sigma 30 f/1.4. Sharp from f/1.4 and better than anything Canon has around this focal length and this price point (28 f/2.8, 35 f/2.0, and 28 f/1.8).

For a telephoto prime, the Canon 85 f/1.8 gets very good reviews across the board.
 
Thanks for the extra advise gents. I'm gonna give this a lot of thought before I do anything. I think I'll look back through the data of my better shots and see what focal length/s I've been tending to use and take it from there.
 
As said before - look at the 24-105 and 100-400 combo. Added to your siggy wide, you've got a hell of a lot of coverage in just 3 lenses.
 
There is nothing wrong with 40D. So upgrade lens first. After some days, you can upgrade to 7D for less price. Of-course, if you like the vedio function, you can upgrade to 5D Mark II first.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top