what would you do - upgrade camera or buy new lens?

C

campergirl

Messages
82
Name
Liz
Edit My Images
Yes
so what would you do?

have a canon 1100d with 18-55 IS lens, plus another lens, possibly canon 55-250 IS.

or

canon 600d or 700d with 18-55 IS kit lens - so 'better' camera but standard lens.

if you compare photos from 700d with kit lens to photos from 1100d with kit lens, how much better will the photos be? Trying to figure out if its worth upgrading the camera or sticking with it but buying a lens.

Sorry if this is a bit vague!! Hope someone can understand what I mean!
 
I was always led to believe that you go lens first on upgrade, as these days a camera body will always perform better with a better quality lens on the front of it.

Unless you are really struggling with the body you have and its not doing what you want it too. but if you only have kit lens then go lens first
 
What are you looking to improve? Image quality, high ISO ability, frames per second, etc,.
If looking purely for image quality then replacing the 18 - 55 would be my choice.
 
ernesto said:
What are you looking to improve? Image quality, high ISO ability, frames per second, etc,.
If looking purely for image quality then replacing the 18 - 55 would be my choice.
Click to expand...

Image quality, ability to zoom in more, better performance in low & artificial light.

Can anyone recommend another lens then which had a bigger zoom than the 18-55 IS but isn't the 55-250? Budget up to £300ish.
 
campergirl said:
Image quality, ability to zoom in more, better performance in low & artificial light.

Can anyone recommend another lens then which had a bigger zoom than the 18-55 IS but isn't the 55-250? Budget up to £300ish.
Click to expand...

Sigma 17-70 OS, possibly a used Canon 15-85 IS?

If you are wiling to compromise on image quality you could consider the 18-250 type super zooms.
 
I'd always say glass before camera but i also feel a decent camera will get the best out of the lens. Catch 22 i guess.
In this case id upgrade the camera. Something like the mentioned 700D will give you better images from the kit lens than the 1100D, and will help get the most out of any future lens purchases.
The kit lens isnt so bad, i brought my first kit lens a few months ago, just to sit on my never used 60D. The images arent stunning but aren't that far off from the 15-85IS shots ive taken with the same camera.
If the lens is upgraded now they will be a bit of an improvement, but not in low light etc. The 1100D is quite a cut down camera IMO, and lacks a lot of the latest features that make using the newer camera's a lot more fun.
 
I'd always gone glass first. Several years ago I got an EFs 17-55 F2.8 IS USM for my 400D.

Although it transformed that little camera (which I still have and use regularly) I upgraded to a 60D as soon as I could.

In the days of film I think it was a much more straight forward question, once the shutter was open it was just glass and emulsion. I find that with digital each bit I upgrade highlights the shortcomings in the other "bits".

As Dave says, bit of a "Catch 22"

Darren (sorry, that's probably not helped has it?)
 
Thanks all for the responses so far, I think I am going to go for a 600d or 700d, see how I go with that and then look to get a better lens. Any more suggestions or thoughts keep 'em coming
 
With only an 18-55 and not much money I'd suggest going for some prime lenses before upgrading the body. They'll go much further to improving your photography skills than a new body will.

Have a look at the 85mm 1.8. One of canon's best for under your budget, then you've got an ok walkaround lens in the 18-55 plus an incredible portrait lens. You'll start getting a much better idea of what you want out of a camera this way, and can upgrade body further down the line.
 
I'd go with a better lens personally. I'm not sure the 55-250mm IS is better than the 18-55mm IS though. Looking at the specs and pricing it's probably just longer. Tamron makes a very reasonably priced 17-50mm f/2.8 lens which is superb.
 
I'd want a walkaround type lens and a longer zoom for more flexibility so would be looking at whatever camera I could stretch to that allowed me to get the 18-55 and 55-250 lenses (I've read a lot of very positive comments from owners of the 55-250). For better low light performance I'd start by taking a look at the 50mm 1.8 (often referred to as the nifty fifty) lens first with cost being a major issue. It is under £90 new and will be more useful in dim lighting than the kit lens or the 55-250.

I'd really recommend trying the camera's you're considering for youself. You may well prefer the handling and feel of one of them more than the others and that could make the decision for you. It's been very important for me in the past.
 
munkee said:
I'd go with a better lens personally. I'm not sure the 55-250mm IS is better than the 18-55mm IS though. Looking at the specs and pricing it's probably just longer. Tamron makes a very reasonably priced 17-50mm f/2.8 lens which is superb.
Click to expand...

Reason for getting the 55-250 would be so that I could take shots of my son when he is further away playing, instead of having to be pretty close to him which I find I need to be with the 18-55IS. I have the 'nifty fifty' which is great when son is still & I can get focus etc right but again doesn't give the option to be further away from what I am photographing (toddler).

Any other suggestions for a zoom lens which would maybe give better quality than the 55-250?
 
What budget do you have in mind for the zoom lens ?
I'm happy with my Tamron 70-300VC, it should be around £290 new.
 
If looking at something like a 70-300mm lens before spending my money I'd want to make sure that the extra 50mm (going from 250-300) made enough difference.
 
Before you write off the nifty two fifty, 55-250, take a look at this thread and see what others have been able to do with it.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=459569

I have had this lens for four years now and it has always produced the goods on my old 350D, I now have the 1100d as of Jan this year and the combination works well.

I recently added a 70-200mm L which I bought second hand from E-Bay for £370,it is a much better lens, but I still use the 55-250 just as much as before.

It has more reach and has IS which helps in certain situations.

John:)
 
woof woof said:
If looking at something like a 70-300mm lens before spending my money I'd want to make sure that the extra 50mm (going from 250-300) made enough difference.
Click to expand...

I had the 70-300 and found over about 220mm the image quality was not as good as the rest of the range. It's a nice lens, and does have more reach, but I wouldn't recommend it if the extra reach was the main reason for getting it.
 
As nice as the 55-250 is, its pretty slow at the long end. That might make a difference if shooting in not ideal light, especially with an older sensor camera.

IMO, and experience, as always :)

EDIT: Just to clarify post. I wasn't getting at the lens as such, most are f/5.6 at the long end, but id hate to have to use the higher ISO of the lower end, older cameras unless i really had to.
The camera will still be the weakest link.
 
Last edited:
Lol at calling the 55-250 a nifty two fifty. I liked that, keep it up. :)

Dave_bass, what 70-300 did you have?
 
I had the Canon 70-300 f/4-f/5.6 IS USM.
I actually got it to replace a 70-200 f/4 IS, as back then i felt a bit too paranoid when out over the park with my young son. I also wanted more reach.
I had it for a couple of years, its a nice lens, but i came to realise its a bit softer over 220mm and so i wasn't getting the most out of it.
Second hand these are a good choice though and id still take one over the 55-250 if the prices were close.
Cant beat the 70-200 f/4 though ;-)
 
If you upgrade the camera you will soon be looking to upgrade the lens. I think you are better with a lens that is too good for the camera than the other way around, you can update the body much more easily. I started with a 1000D with the kit lens and then got a better lens and was very pleased that I did. The kit lens was ok but really showed its weakness when compared to a better set of glass, I opted for a 28-135 which doesn't properly match the crop sensor but gave me the better quality and reach I wanted and could afford. I changed to a 550D a few years ago then I changed the lens to a 24-105L. A lot of people will be able to point out the mismatch between lens and camera capability and they are right, but so am I as the camera and lens do exactly what I want them to do right now, if I want to upgrade to FF I can, in the meantime I'm getting what is to me some amazing quality.

When you start to look for a better lens you are in a difficult place where you have to make difficult choices. whichever way you go somebody will suggests something else so decide what you need.

I pulled out the 1000D a couple of weeks ago expecting it to feel a bit flimsy and was impressed with how solid it felt, I expect the 1100D is similar.

It might be worth looking at the Canon eBay refurb site where they have been selling some decent DSLR kits and lenses recently. http://stores.ebay.co.uk/canon-outl..._fsub=11&_sid=114950978&_trksid=p4634.c0.m322
 
I have a canon 18-135 You can get them for under £200 S/H, get one of those and a niffy fifty for £80 IMO.
 
j37r said:
Ernesto
Sorry I cannot claim to have nicknamed the 55-250mm the "Nifty two Fifty", that was done back in April 2008 by one of the contributors to this thread

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=459569

and it has stuck.

John;)
Click to expand...

I didn't say you were the first to use it, just not to ever use it again. Sorry, just something that really annoys me for some reason. Yes, my problem - I know :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top