Equipment 40D...

...Then...

Eric, unless you had an epiphany this is why I am stressing glass. It is clear to me that a body upgrade is low on your priority list even given the rebates on the 40D ATM.

You say you have trouble in low light, yet you have no low light glass (besides the 50, which IMO isn't the best anyhow). Yes, low light AF speed and accuracy on the XTi is not the greatest, BUT it will be much better once you hang some decent glass off the end. As long as its (low light) not something you do regularly, I wouldn't worry about it.

Try this: http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=946

It is a $400 lens with $150-200 IS in it. The Tamron 17-50 is a $400 lens, would you consider them to be in the same performance column?

Still, 1mm wider than what you have now , Seriously though get yourself a decent mid range first, then worry about specialty lenses later. As you said, you can get better results generating panos rather than shooting a scene once at 16mm.

24mm for groups is about as wide as I'll go, and thats not just because its my widest FL, but if any wider you will run into a real fun house. When I shot with my 40D and my buddies 17-85 (eesh) 17mm (27mm) was plenty wide for groups. If you don't have the space, find some. BTW, FWIW I'd look into the Tokina 11-16 if you plan to shoot low light, ex: Stage, event...etc etc (11-16 f/2.8, 17-55 f/2.8, 50 f/1.8, 70-200 f.../4).

In the end, either way you go you will be happy...they are all good choices.

 

Very true. However, that was before I tried one It turns out that the differences on paper didn't do much for me, but were much more significant in my hand. I'm not sure I'd use the word "epiphany" but let's say that I was pleasantly surprised.

A very valid point. As I've mentioned a couple times, I intend to get both the glass and the body in time (and probably not THAT far apart), it's just a matter of in which order. However, I'm most often using off-camera lighting in lower-light situations. As such, it's mostly the autofocus that's the problem, and not always the speed of the glass. Obviously they go hand-in-hand to some degree.

In the "all other things being equal" test I did in the store the other day, the 40D definitely had better AF performance than my XTi (as expected). This wasn't on especially fast glass, however; they didn't have a 17-55 available to test, so I have no way of knowing firsthand how my XTi will perform with that f/2.8 lens. I'm sure the 40D will be better, but I can't know how significant the difference is. The XTi usually is acceptable in low-light IF I have my 580II attached since it has the AF assist beams, but most of the time it's off-camera not emitting any beam (it also has a fairly limited useful range, but again I'd have to find a store that has the 17-55 in to test how much the faster glass helps as compared to the body).

Thanks for the link. It's not quite what I had meant (except for the 1DsIII menu stuff, which is also present on the 40D) but is a good resource all the same.

Good point, I hadn't thought about it that way. Though per your own and others recommendations, I'm often skeptical of non-Canon glass. Or is it much more of an issue with Sigma than with Tamron? Obviously the Canon has the 3-stop IS not present on the Tamron (and supports FTM), but it's also more than twice the cost and doesn't even include a hood which is very weak for a thousand dollar lens. Do consider that I'd much rather spend the thousand upfront (that looks a lot worse written out somehow...) than spend $400 on the Tamron only to replace it with that same Canon in a couple years. I'm a big fan of IS, especially as I hate using tripods, though obviously it's of much more benefit on my longer and slower 70-200 f/4 than it would be on the wide, fast 17-55.

True, and at that focal length the 1mm does go fairly far, not to mention the better everything else over the kit lens. I was really hoping to play around with the 17-55 the other day when I checked out the 40D and 10-22 but they didn't have any (nor did they have any of the other glass you've recommended) The Tokina may make sense for an ultra-wide with the fast aperture; I'd ideally like to play around with one or at least see some samples though. It appears to be quite new to the market so there's not a ton of info on it that I've found so far. A couple of tests of the Nikon version were all I was able to find last I checked. Good point about the distortion on the ultrawides, those people on the edges could start to look pretty freaky.

 

Right, here is the point I am trying to stress. Based on the recent economic conditions there is a very good chance Canon will (again) increase prices, and when they do so they will do so first and foremost on glass (remember, they want people to buy Cameras, and so they will keep bodies lower in cost in comparison to accessories). And so, if you are financially strapped it may be a good idea to look into products which are more likely to increase in price. The 40D will only drop in price and fall rebates (when you think about it) are not that much further off...if you can survive a few months with the XTi it may be well worth the wait.

As for third party, there seem to be more QC issues with Sigma than with Tokina and Tamron, yet this is to be expected since Sigma is a much larger company. As for issues concerning the Tamron 17-50 I have not once come across one on FM (and believe me, if there were issues you'd hear them). No doubt the 17-55 is a better choice, but if your not shooting a ton of low light I really can't see any justification in the price increase...then again, personally, I'd rather have the option than not.

The Tokina 11-16 is quickly becoming the go to UWA for event photogs, and is no doubt on many wish lists. About $150 cheaper than the 10-22, better BQ&IQ and best of all constant f/2.8 (at the loss of some range). Check out these reviews:
http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Canon EOS Lens Tests/45-canon-eos-aps-c/379-tokina_1116_28_canon
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=352&sort=7&cat=40&page=1

Also, and I apologize if I missed it, what don't you like about the 30D? Is it the VF, screen size? If I hadn't already posted this check it out as well: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/650929

 

Hope you don't mind but perhaps the good souls over on FM can add to the discussion. Let me know if I missed anything.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/viewtopic.php?TopicID=651223

If you can't see the results, sign up.

 

Basically, you have to ask yourself: "Will better glass help me get more from my 400D?" If so, go for glass.

If not, go for the 40D.

Printers are last in the queue. You can take your photos to any good photography shop to have your images printed for you on their state-of-the-art printer setup. I'd invest more in taking them in the first place.

 

Thanks, and yes, I'd say that's a pretty accurate summary you posted there. I appreciate you going out of your way for the additional feedback - it means a lot to me.

Nexxo - that's definitely the question I've been asking myself all along. I generally feel that the focal lengths I have available tend to be the more limiting factor than the lenses themselves (namely the ultra-wide area, though as Matt has rightly pointed out, it's probably not the best investment at this time). Without spending at least a couple hours with the lenses I'm considering it feels hard to make a truly informed decision - all of the opinions in the world just aren't as helpful as having the thing in my hand to try. Don't get me wrong - the feedback has been invaluable, it's just difficult to make decisions from it at times since everyone has their own styles and needs and their feedback reflects that. And of course, there's a different ideal lens for every type of shooting. Thankfully I don't do the whole bird thing so I can scratch the 600/800-range lenses off the list, but I've been at some places where I had the right focal length but too slow glass, and others where it was the wrong range but plenty fast.

I have no doubts that either the Canon 17-55 or the Tamron 17-50 would be a massive improvement in image and build quality over the kit lens (not to mention the faster and perhaps more important constant speed), and that it would cover enough of the wide range that the 70-200 could cover the longer end perfectly well and I could sell off the 28-135. While the IQ on the kit lens is acceptable and on the 28-135, good, they're not taking shots that I'd be able to print at any large range or sell beyond maybe a large web resolution. As it is, I'm still searching for my area of expertise so that I can then focus in on that commercially. I'm somewhat moving towards the product photography area (which had prompted my initial interest in the macro lenses) but would like to have some stock out there too which tends to be much more... uhh... well, you know that stock look.

Agreed on the printers though, I'll just stick with services for now. I've got one of those free-with-computer printers sitting around that might make decent 4x6 shots if I need them, but I'd rather not mess around with ink and paper and all that. There are a couple of local places that can probably take care of that stuff, and there's always Shutterfly and the like.

 

I am glad you appreciate it...now I want to punch that guy through a wall
Just in case you haven't signed up the poll looks like this so far:
40D - 9
30D+17-50 - 4
17-55 - 13

 

Fixed. There are people out there making a living shooting everything from stock photos to weddings using gear that 'professionals' wouldn't use as paper weights. I'm not necessarily saying that any n00b can take a Rebel XTi and take award-winning photos, but I do believe there is some truth to the quote I posted above; good photos that you can sell can come from an XTi with a kit lens. Are there better, sharper, faster lenses? Yes. Are there better, faster, more feature-rich bodies? Absolutely. Should you be worrying about your gear rather than about using what you have to the best of your ability? No.

Ask yourself, right now, what is the limiting factor in the majority of the photos you take? Have your skills progressed to the point where better glass will help you get more creamy bokeh? Will your existing body be able to keep up with the expensive glass, or do you find yourself needing a faster frame rate (for sports) or increased resolution and bit depth (for landscapes).

It's kind of like a hobbyist golfer who's thinking about making on the pro-tour one day. Should he invest in better clubs? What about the shoes? A better brand of golf ball? One of my co-workers from a previous job bragged about the Nike golf balls he bought. They cost $20 per ball, and they were supposed to take your game to a new level. They were manufactured to a higher standard than your run-of-the-mill ball. He set his ball on the tee, lined up his shot, and sent the ball whizzing of into the trees a few yards away. Maybe he should have spent the money on a better driver, or some lessons.

-monkey

 

I completely agree. However for instance, I've taken landscape shots using the kit lens that, in terms of composition and things that are under my control, probably could sell if I were to get off my arse and really pursue it (which is to say, really start actively searching for a market) - however, there is a good deal of detail that's simply not there (or lost to CA, other stuff that's out of my control) and would likely pose a problem for prints of a sell-able size.

Which in that one instance points me to glass, but I'd say that was the exception to the rule.

And I've been there with the golf thing too. Luckily, I've quite convinced myself that I just suck at it and practice and/or lessons is what I really need. Don't get me wrong, I could use plenty of additional experience with photography too, but couldn't we all?

 

I couldn't agree more. Sometimes I feel like I learn something new every week, and sometimes I learn even more about a subject that I thought I knew pretty well. That's part of the fun of the art.

As I think about it, my posts have come across as very anti-gear, and that may not be entirely fair. In my defense, that may be my Art background showing. Speaking from my experience, the camera (or paintbrush or pencil) has just been the tool. The execution and resulting image are what counts (and I don't think anybody really disagrees with that). While a master may be able to make use of more sophisticated equipment, most of us end up making the same images with more expensive stuff. That said, decent gear can be nice to have. I've enjoyed the heck out of my 40D more than my 300D, just as I enjoy painting with my sable brushes and Grumbacher oils more than dollar-store craft paint. On the other hand, the 28-135 IS kit lens hasn't really failed me yet (not counting a handful of specific occasions), and I've painted murals on three different nurseries using inexpensive craft acrylics.

I couldn't justify spending $1000 on a lens right now, but that's just my situation. Your mileage may vary.

-monkey

 

Throw my 24-105 on the end of your 40D and if you don't see a difference in the results between it and your 28-135 I'll let you have it In all honestly glass does make a huge difference in many applications, some take a bit of practice to master but the results can turn a good photographer into a better one. When I first got my DSLR and began shooting with the kit and a 75-300 IS, my images looked OK...certainly was not stunned with the sharpness and colors (at least looking back on it now) but over all was pretty stoked when a good one came out. I've made plenty of good images with that set-up, but I've also missed plenty. Now that my equipment is better, I'm able to put all of my talent to use and it shows in the results. The question is not: will new gear make an OK/good photographer better, rather how much will it make an OK/good photographer better and is it worth the extra cost to do so. In many cases its not until awesome glass is used that a photographer discovers his/her true ability. And you may ask yourself...what about all those great shots made with the kit? If it hasn't been heavily doctored in PP, could you imagine what that individual could do with better equipment? If anything, poor equipment puts a damper on a photog's true capacity which can and often does limit the quality of output...in essence its like pumping unleaded fuel into a Skyline GTR. There is no substitute for talent and it is the most important tool in a photographers bag BUT that does not call for the need to discredit excellent equipment and act as if it cannot help and individual grow as an artist. And so in the words of a great man...That's all I have to say about that.

 

I do understand that the stock kit lens has its flaws. As I said, there have been a handful of occasions in which I wish I had a better lens. And while I won't argue that an L-lens will have superior qualities, I do question whether or not a photographer's images will suddenly sparkle with nothing more than a lens change (or a body change for that matter).

Tooling around Fred Miranda, I stumbled upon this thread, in which members were asked to post photos taken with cheap lenses. There are some absolutely cracking shots in there (I love your zebra shot, by the way - great use of black and white). I think that thread demonstrates what I'm trying to get across. Good skill, when coupled with good lighting and an understanding of subjective elements such as composition, can overcome the limitations of any cheap lens.

-monkey

 

Right, but as I said, If I had a 5D and a 100-400 or 70-200 or any lens I have now for that matter there is no question whether or not those images would appear better. The same goes for most of the images posted within that thread. I will not argue that you cannot achieve great shots with cheap equipment, but I will argue that you can get greater shots with better equipment (given time and experience with it). Anyhow, I feel that once a photographer has outgrown and outperformed his or her current set-up, it would be a good time to upgrade to something with a bit more headroom in order to achieve full potential. And BTW, thank you.

 

Not to add further fuel to Vers' fire, but I have to say that my ability to view and frame and work with shots increased a LOT when my lens could accomodate what I was trying to do.

I bought the 17-50 tamron and having a walkaround that drops to 2.8 across the board is amazing in pretty much every way. Granted, as you know from our many discussions, I shoot outdoor and very little indoor. Studio is right out, and it is your particular love. So...YMMV? I guess if I had more love for studio, I'd be more concerned with body and flash control, as lens speed isn't important cause of the flash. For me, the lower that aperture, the better I can function. So my body can be cheap but the lens is where it's at.

I'll never regret the 17-50 f/2.8...so I can completely understand Matt's argument that you could be using that money for a lens more worth its salt. But the 40D is still a lust-worthy piece of kit and for a studio-head like you it might be more valuable.

 

FWIW the poll on FM has become relatively stagnant since the last post.
Where it stands:
40D - 13 (37%)
30D&17-50 - 4 (11%)
17-55 - 18 (51%)

 

Yeah, I've been keeping an eye on the poll. It's not apples-to-apples, but it's not too far off from what I'm seeing here either. Certainly not an extreme opinion on either side, anyways.

It sounds like the Tamron may be a more reasonable choice as compared to the Canon 17-55 at more than twice the price. IS would no doubt be a blessing even at the shorter range (handheld at 1/4s 17mm? think of the smooth moving water... yes please), but from what I've read the IQ on the Canon isn't tremendously better. I understand that the AF mechanism on the Tamrons is a little weird (the "clutch" thing) and that this lens in particular doesn't support FTM, but I use autofocus for 99.5% of my shots anyways. I'll look at some more samples, but I'm headed down the road of IS, 5mm at the long end and FTM isn't worth the extra ~$600, especially when that doesn't even include a hood.

I should be couple hundred dollar bonus from the day job in a couple weeks too (depends how many of these guys make their numbers... one has, one's at 98.5% and the other I'm not sure but says he's in good shape) that should cover most of the Tamron should I go that route. While price-wise the Canon and 40D close to each other is pretty unreasonable, the Tamron+40D close to each other (read: a few weeks) isn't out of the question especially if I'm able to turn around and sell the XTI pretty quickly.

Thoughts on that?

 

The 17-55 gives a lot more in comparison to the Tamron...not so much in the IQ dept.(which the 17-55 is still better, if only slightly), rather overall performance. BQ is noticeably better (though the Tamron is built well enough). Just holding the two with your eyes closed you get the sense that the Canon has that solid 'feel'. AF speed and accuracy is also a huge plus for the Canon...a hell of a lot better, particularly in low light. And of course the addition of IS adds a few pennies to the total cost. All in all its worth the extra cash for many to go with the Canon, for those who shoot more casually and do not depend on a lens in this class for low light the Tamron serves them well enough. In all honesty I still think you should go with the 30D+Tamron 17-50...by far the biggest bang for the buck and I feel it will suit your needs just fine, then again its just an opinion, only you know whats best. At this point I don't feel I can give you anymore advice...go with your gut and see what happens.