Upgrade to Canon 70D with 18-135 IS?

[havoc315]

I was just going to suggest upgrading glass first.

That Canon lens would set you back almost as much as the 70D body, but between the constant 2.8 and the IS, I think it's a lot more bang for the buck. My problem is that I already have that lens and don't really have a next step without moving to FF, which just isn't happening any time soon.

There are some cheaper alternatives, like the Tamon 17-50 2.8. I didn't love it when I had it for Sony, but it's still a big upgrade over a kit lens.

So you have an upgrade itch, but don't know where to focus? Your software needs are all met? Lighting?

I try to resist body-upgrade itches, knowing that there will always be a newer better body every year or so. Right now, I am tempted to upgrade from my Sony A55 to A77... but I'm waiting, to see if the next model is more compelling. An upgrade now, wouldn't really do anything for my IQ except for higher resolution. So do I upgrade just for a better body, better AF, and higher resolution...
Do I save my pennies for FF.. do I wait another year or 2 for more APS-C advances...

It's hard to know *when* to pull the trigger. But I try to be patient.

 

[mom2rtk]

There are some cheaper alternatives, like the Tamon 17-50 2.8. I didn't love it when I had it for Sony, but it's still a big upgrade over a kit lens.

So you have an upgrade itch, but don't know where to focus? Your software needs are all met? Lighting?

I try to resist body-upgrade itches, knowing that there will always be a newer better body every year or so. Right now, I am tempted to upgrade from my Sony A55 to A77... but I'm waiting, to see if the next model is more compelling. An upgrade now, wouldn't really do anything for my IQ except for higher resolution. So do I upgrade just for a better body, better AF, and higher resolution...
Do I save my pennies for FF.. do I wait another year or 2 for more APS-C advances...

It's hard to know *when* to pull the trigger. But I try to be patient.

I actually pretty happy with Lightroom. And I like my external flashes. Although both matters would likely benefit more from my time than any sort of $$$ investment.

I did just address my desire for a 2.8 zoom with OS. I was really frozen into inaction on this for a long time. I have the Sigma 50-150 2.8, but really suffered from lack of OS. That lens with OS came out a while back but I couldn't commit on 1) carrying it or 2) paying for it. Do I pull the trigger? Do I upgrade the body instead hoping for another stop of usable ISO? Do I ditch Canon entirely and go to Sony or Pentax for the in-body stabilization?

To be honest, I got really tired of hem-hawing. And I got the lens, the 50-150 2.8 with OS. I've only gotten to try it out once, but like what I've seen so far. I could still decide it's just more weight than I ever want to carry and sell it. I'm taking it to Disneyland soon and figure if I decide it's more weight than I want to carry, I can sell it and not lose any more than it would have cost me to rent something for the trip anyway.

 

[NJGuy3]

So many choices.

You'll get the maximum improvement in higher ISO -- which will also allow faster shutter speeds, by upgrading to fullframe. APS-C cameras can't really touch fullframe cameras for ISO.

So a "clean" shot that you currently get a 1/50 at ISO 400... Will be equally clean at fullframe, 1/200 ISO 1600.

The 70D noise performance is better than the t1i, but only by about a half of a stop. But a fullframe will give you an additional 2-3 full stops.
And if you upgrade to fullframe, you will likely have to upgrade your lenses as well. Not sure if any of your lenses are fullframe lenses, I think they are all crop lenses.

Compared to upgrading camera bodies, you would probably see bigger improvement to your images by upgrading lenses.

Trade in your kit lens for a constant 2.8 aperture lens. That will give you "speed" just slightly slower than your 50/1.8.

Let's say you get the Canon 17-55 2.8 lens... That will give you a full 2-stop improvement when shooting at 55mm.
Much like the example above -- At 55mm... If you previously got a clean shot at 1/50 ISO 400... You will now be able to get the same amount of like at 1/200 (by opening up your aperture) and staying with ISO 400.

The wider aperture will give you more leeway in low light, the ability to get by with lower ISOs, and the availability of faster shutter speeds.

You may still want to upgrade your camera body down the road. But you'll get more bang for your buck with lenses right now, IMHO.

I was just going to suggest upgrading glass first.

That Canon lens would set you back almost as much as the 70D body, but between the constant 2.8 and the IS, I think it's a lot more bang for the buck. My problem is that I already have that lens and don't really have a next step without moving to FF, which just isn't happening any time soon.

Thank you both for the info/advice! Based on everything said...if I'm to purchase anything for now, I think it'll be a lens.

My friend has the Tamron 17-55 f/2.8, which he likes alot, for his Canon T4i.

As far as noise from higher ISO...I've had good results using Lightroom 5.2 eliminating some of the noise in my photos...which is a nice solution.

These are three of the lenses I'm now considering:
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/652136-USA/Tamron_AFB005C700_SP_AF_17_50mm_f_2_8.html
Canon 28mm f/2.8
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/843011-USA/Canon_5179B002_EF_28mm_f_2_8_IS.html
Canon 28mm f/1.8 (no image stabilization)
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/102851-USA/Canon_2510A003_Wide_Angle_EF_28mm.html
Any feedback would be appreciated!

 

[havoc315]

Do I ditch Canon entirely and go to Sony or Pentax for the in-body stabilization?

It amazes me when I see experienced photographers -- with a whole system collected -- hop between brands. For me, once I passed more than a minimal investment in 1 system, I'm too conservative to jump ship. I'm certainly tempted by other systems, but the thought of putting all my gear up for sale.. taking a bit of a loss... then learning a whole new system...

Don't get me wrong, I'm sometimes tempted by other system. But I haven't seen big enough pros and cons of different systems to really make switching worthwhile.

My only fear.. being a Sony shooter... is that Sony may some day stop supporting the old Minolta mount. Sony is putting all their energy into newer technology cameras and innovation... they seem content to forfeit the dSLR battle.

 

[mom2rtk]

It amazes me when I see experienced photographers -- with a whole system collected -- hop between brands. For me, once I passed more than a minimal investment in 1 system, I'm too conservative to jump ship. I'm certainly tempted by other systems, but the thought of putting all my gear up for sale.. taking a bit of a loss... then learning a whole new system...

Don't get me wrong, I'm sometimes tempted by other system. But I haven't seen big enough pros and cons of different systems to really make switching worthwhile.

My only fear.. being a Sony shooter... is that Sony may some day stop supporting the old Minolta mount. Sony is putting all their energy into newer technology cameras and innovation... they seem content to forfeit the dSLR battle.

Well, in the end, I decided hopping brands really would just require too much of a hit. But it was really tempting to consider since I would no longer have to *pay* for IS every time I added a lens or *carry* my IS lenses.

It's probably a bigger issue for me, as I have very unsteady hands and now that I have lived the good life with IS, I really don't want to go back.

I tried so hard to shoot the MVMCP parade last year with my non-IS 2.8 zoom. But part way through I swapped back to my workhorse, the Canon 17-55 2.8 with IS and gave up on the tighter shots. And it came through like a trooper.

I love that lens so much that actually played into my ultimate decision as well. They're going to have to pry that one out of my cold dead hands one day.

 

[havoc315]

Thank you both for the info/advice! Based on everything said...if I'm to purchase anything for now, I think it'll be a lens.

My friend has the Tamron 17-55 f/2.8, which he likes alot, for his Canon T4i.

As far as noise from higher ISO...I've had good results using Lightroom 5.2 eliminating some of the noise in my photos...which is a nice solution.

These are three of the lenses I'm now considering:
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/652136-USA/Tamron_AFB005C700_SP_AF_17_50mm_f_2_8.html
Canon 28mm f/2.8
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/843011-USA/Canon_5179B002_EF_28mm_f_2_8_IS.html
Canon 28mm f/1.8 (no image stabilization)
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/102851-USA/Canon_2510A003_Wide_Angle_EF_28mm.html
Any feedback would be appreciated!

Give yourself a roadmap........ Determining what you want/need..... A 2-3 year upgrade plan.

I don't think I'd get the primes, unless you think you'd be happy shooting primarily with the prime. So if you're happy taking most of your shots at either 28 or 50... don't mind switching lenses back and forth, then the 28 will be the best performer. (And you don't usually need image stabilization at 28mm). But if you are looking for a zoom lens you can walk around with, knowing you may sometimes want to shoot wide.. sometimes at 50mm... I'd go with the Tamron 17-50 2.8.

Looking at your gear.. if it was me... and if I liked telephoto shooting, I'd make a plan to eventually get rid of the Tamron 18-270... and replace it with a dedicated telephoto zoom. I don't know Canon lenses that well, but I can vouch for the Tamron 70-300 usd. A dedicated telephoto/zoom will give you much higher image quality than the superzoom. Apertures are also a tad faster.

The 28/1.8 lens would be very useful for indoor/flashless photography. Where your current 50mm is too long for indoors, the 28 would work well. It would be great for Disney dark rides.

I have a 35mm 1.8 which I'll use when I want to travel super light, or for anticipated low light. But if I want versatility and if I don't mind the weight, then I always have my 16-50 2.8 mounted on my camera as a walk around.

 

[mom2rtk]

Give yourself a roadmap........ Determining what you want/need..... A 2-3 year upgrade plan.

I don't think I'd get the primes, unless you think you'd be happy shooting primarily with the prime. So if you're happy taking most of your shots at either 28 or 50... don't mind switching lenses back and forth, then the 28 will be the best performer. (And you don't usually need image stabilization at 28mm). But if you are looking for a zoom lens you can walk around with, knowing you may sometimes want to shoot wide.. sometimes at 50mm... I'd go with the Tamron 17-50 2.8.

Looking at your gear.. if it was me... and if I liked telephoto shooting, I'd make a plan to eventually get rid of the Tamron 18-270... and replace it with a dedicated telephoto zoom. I don't know Canon lenses that well, but I can vouch for the Tamron 70-300 usd. A dedicated telephoto/zoom will give you much higher image quality than the superzoom. Apertures are also a tad faster.

The 28/1.8 lens would be very useful for indoor/flashless photography. Where your current 50mm is too long for indoors, the 28 would work well. It would be great for Disney dark rides.

I have a 35mm 1.8 which I'll use when I want to travel super light, or for anticipated low light. But if I want versatility and if I don't mind the weight, then I always have my 16-50 2.8 mounted on my camera as a walk around.

I totally agree. The 17-50 range 2.8 is on my camera 95% of the time.

I have a couple primes, and I really consider them to be "task" lenses. I use them for very specific tasks. The Sigma 30mm f/1.4 comes out when shooting in really low light (dark rides anyone?) and the 50mm f/1.8 comes out when I'm in a dark setting and want a bit more reach with a really fast lens or when I need my DSLR to impersonate a bridge sort of camera to get past security at Disney on Ice.

Beyond that, give me that 17-50 range in a fast lens and I'm pretty happy.

 

[havoc315]

I totally agree. The 17-50 range 2.8 is on my camera 95% of the time.

I have a couple primes, and I really consider them to be "task" lenses. I use them for very specific tasks. The Sigma 30mm f/1.4 comes out when shooting in really low light (dark rides anyone?) and the 50mm f/1.8 comes out when I'm in a dark setting and want a bit more reach with a really fast lens or when I need my DSLR to impersonate a bridge sort of camera to get past security at Disney on Ice.

Beyond that, give me that 17-50 range in a fast lens and I'm pretty happy.

My lens collection got a little too big. I love all my lenses, they each have some different strengths. But I feel like if they were my children, some are being deprived of my attention.
I love using the 50mm prime and 85mm prime for portraits.... but then I have a really ancient cheap but amazing good 35-105 zoom which is great for outdoor portraits.
Yes, the 35 1.8 is useful indoors... but since I got the 16-50 2.8... I find I need the 1.8 so much less often.
And between having the 35/1.8... and so many lenses that cover 50mm, I find my 50/1.7 almost never gets use anymore. At least my 50mm 2.8 macro gets use if I'm in a macro mood. Love my 135/2.8 prime.... but it obviously isnt as versatile as my 70-200 or my 70-300......

 

[mom2rtk]

My lens collection got a little too big. I love all my lenses, they each have some different strengths. But I feel like if they were my children, some are being deprived of my attention.
I love using the 50mm prime and 85mm prime for portraits.... but then I have a really ancient cheap but amazing good 35-105 zoom which is great for outdoor portraits.
Yes, the 35 1.8 is useful indoors... but since I got the 16-50 2.8... I find I need the 1.8 so much less often.
And between having the 35/1.8... and so many lenses that cover 50mm, I find my 50/1.7 almost never gets use anymore. At least my 50mm 2.8 macro gets use if I'm in a macro mood. Love my 135/2.8 prime.... but it obviously isnt as versatile as my 70-200 or my 70-300......

If my lenses were my children, DFS would probably get a call for how much I neglect that 50mm f/1.8.

And all the others would complain that I play favorites with the Canon 17-55 f/2.8.

 

[runninlow3]

Give yourself a roadmap........ Determining what you want/need..... A 2-3 year upgrade plan.

I don't think I'd get the primes, unless you think you'd be happy shooting primarily with the prime. So if you're happy taking most of your shots at either 28 or 50... don't mind switching lenses back and forth, then the 28 will be the best performer. (And you don't usually need image stabilization at 28mm). But if you are looking for a zoom lens you can walk around with, knowing you may sometimes want to shoot wide.. sometimes at 50mm... I'd go with the Tamron 17-50 2.8.

Looking at your gear.. if it was me... and if I liked telephoto shooting, I'd make a plan to eventually get rid of the Tamron 18-270... and replace it with a dedicated telephoto zoom. I don't know Canon lenses that well, but I can vouch for the Tamron 70-300 usd. A dedicated telephoto/zoom will give you much higher image quality than the superzoom. Apertures are also a tad faster.

The 28/1.8 lens would be very useful for indoor/flashless photography. Where your current 50mm is too long for indoors, the 28 would work well. It would be great for Disney dark rides.

I have a 35mm 1.8 which I'll use when I want to travel super light, or for anticipated low light. But if I want versatility and if I don't mind the weight, then I always have my 16-50 2.8 mounted on my camera as a walk around.

My main use for a prime lens would be for dark rides and benefit from the f/1.8. My 50mm doesn't have image stabilization so you like you said, it's not necessary if I were to get the 28mm.

Good to know about the Tamron 70-300mm!

I totally agree. The 17-50 range 2.8 is on my camera 95% of the time.

I have a couple primes, and I really consider them to be "task" lenses. I use them for very specific tasks. The Sigma 30mm f/1.4 comes out when shooting in really low light (dark rides anyone?) and the 50mm f/1.8 comes out when I'm in a dark setting and want a bit more reach with a really fast lens or when I need my DSLR to impersonate a bridge sort of camera to get past security at Disney on Ice.

Beyond that, give me that 17-50 range in a fast lens and I'm pretty happy.

I use my 50mm as you do...it comes out when shooting low light, usually for dark rides at Disney.

So it seems like the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 is the way to go. Have you both used this lens in dark rides? Would this lens perform well in that situation?

 

[havoc315]

My main use for a prime lens would be for dark rides and benefit from the f/1.8. My 50mm doesn't have image stabilization so you like you said, it's not necessary if I were to get the 28mm.

Good to know about the Tamron 70-300mm!

I use my 50mm as you do...it comes out when shooting low light, usually for dark rides at Disney.

So it seems like the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 is the way to go. Have you both used this lens in dark rides? Would this lens perform well in that situation?

2.8 may be ok in the brighter dark rides, like Small World. But for the darker rides, you really need an aperture larger than 2... 1.8, or even better, 1.4. 2.8 is great for normal low light --- Just regular indoors. But for actual darkness, you need even more extreme.

Remember, dark rides are extra challenging... since it is ultra low light PLUS motion. So you need to keep your shutter speed up to freeze the action, while also trying to get in enough light. My settings for dark rides end up being about 1.8, 1/60, ISO6400 --- Dark ride photographer pushes the technological limitations of my cameras and lenses.


DSC01290 by Havoc315, on Flickr

 

[runninlow3]

2.8 may be ok in the brighter dark rides, like Small World. But for the darker rides, you really need an aperture larger than 2... 1.8, or even better, 1.4. 2.8 is great for normal low light --- Just regular indoors. But for actual darkness, you need even more extreme.

Remember, dark rides are extra challenging... since it is ultra low light PLUS motion. So you need to keep your shutter speed up to freeze the action, while also trying to get in enough light. My settings for dark rides end up being about 1.8, 1/60, ISO6400 --- Dark ride photographer pushes the technological limitations of my cameras and lenses.

Challenging indeed! I've been most successful with my 50mm f/1.8 lens in dark rides...but it's too tight at times. This is why I was thinking about going with a wider prime such as the 28mm f/1.8.

Have you ever tried your 17-50mm in Haunted Mansion?

 

[mom2rtk]

I agree that a 2.8 lens is optimistic for use on a dark ride, at least on the darker of the dark rides. I sometimes shoot with a 2.8 if I'm not in the mood to swap lenses, or can't get to my other lens, but I generally have to bump up to ISO 6400 and that's not pretty on a T2i, even with noise reduction in post. I really consider 3200 my highest usable ISO.

Now that I have addressed my desire for a 2.8 zoom with OS, I think that Sigma 18-35 1.8 will be my next target. I just can't ever plan to carry both at the same time.

 

[havoc315]

I agree that a 2.8 lens is optimistic for use on a dark ride, at least on the darker of the dark rides. I sometimes shoot with a 2.8 if I'm not in the mood to swap lenses, or can't get to my other lens, but I generally have to bump up to ISO 6400 and that's not pretty on a T2i, even with noise reduction in post. I really consider 3200 my highest usable ISO.

Now that I have addressed my desire for a 2.8 zoom with OS, I think that Sigma 18-35 1.8 will be my next target. I just can't ever plan to carry both at the same time.

I'm so curious about that lens. Just can't justify it as being useful outside of Disney dark rides.

 

[NJGuy3]

I agree that a 2.8 lens is optimistic for use on a dark ride, at least on the darker of the dark rides. I sometimes shoot with a 2.8 if I'm not in the mood to swap lenses, or can't get to my other lens, but I generally have to bump up to ISO 6400 and that's not pretty on a T2i, even with noise reduction in post. I really consider 3200 my highest usable ISO.

Now that I have addressed my desire for a 2.8 zoom with OS, I think that Sigma 18-35 1.8 will be my next target. I just can't ever plan to carry both at the same time.

I've pushed the ISO on my T1i as well...as high as 12800 in Haunted Mansion!

I like the idea of the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8...would luv to hear your opinion of it if you get it.

 

[SkaGoat]

I agree that a 2.8 lens is optimistic for use on a dark ride, at least on the darker of the dark rides. I sometimes shoot with a 2.8 if I'm not in the mood to swap lenses, or can't get to my other lens, but I generally have to bump up to ISO 6400 and that's not pretty on a T2i, even with noise reduction in post. I really consider 3200 my highest usable ISO.

Now that I have addressed my desire for a 2.8 zoom with OS, I think that Sigma 18-35 1.8 will be my next target. I just can't ever plan to carry both at the same time.

This is exactly why I've set the max ISO under Auto ISO at 3200.

 

[nbaresejr]

This is exactly why I've set the max ISO under Auto ISO at 3200.

Same for me.

I would caution that whatever lens you pick just do keeping in mind the uses for it outside of Disney. Most of us dont get to the parks more then maybe 1 time per year. Its hard to justify spending 500+ on a lens that does not have many uses outside of the parks.

 

[photo_chick]

I'm in a similar situation...I currently own a T1i and have been considering upgrading to the 70D but trying to justify the purchase which is currently $1099 for body only.

I've owned the T1i for two years now and probably used video just once! I'm more interested in higher iso and faster shutter speed.
My lens collection includes the kit 18-55mm, Tamron 18-270mm, Canon 50mm f/1.8 and Rokinon 8mm fisheye.

I would consider myself a hobby/amateur photographer. I tend to photograph Disney mostly and any vacation my wife & I go on. Based on my use, are the 70D's features enough to purchase it?

Do I wait a while and purchase a full-frame next time around and/or consider a new lens for now? And if so, which lens would I want next?

To the OP...not trying to hijack the thread...figured I'd reply to this thread being that it's very similar to my situation.

I have been very underwhelmed by the 70D. I want to love it. Truly I do. And for video it rocks. But it's ISO is still disappointing.

I had a 50D... actually finally parted with it today. I have a 6D in my bag already. So I've been doing my serious research right now, trying to decide if I really want a 70D as my backup or a T5i. And honestly the ISO just isn't that great. It's slightly better than the 50D/T1i sensor but not leaps and bounds better. I will likely go with the 70D because I want the more advanced video as well as some other features of the camera. But having had my hands on it, I was just really disappointed by the real world high ISO results.

So, my point... make sure you have realistic expectations and I wouldn't go for it unless you're looking for more than an ISO upgrade because it's likely to disappoint there. And if ISO is your bottom line then spend a little bit more and get a 6D. The 6D on ISO 25600 is cleaner than the 50D at 3200 and you can get 6D refurbs nearly as cheap as a new 70D if you watch for Canon's sales. And I'm not saying this as someone who thinks full frame is everything... I honestly don't think you need full frame at all to make great images. It just happens that the 6D has amazing ISO performance and happens to be full frame. And with the price this camera is selling for it's a steal.

 

[NJGuy3]

I have been very underwhelmed by the 70D. I want to love it. Truly I do. And for video it rocks. But it's ISO is still disappointing.

I had a 50D... actually finally parted with it today. I have a 6D in my bag already. So I've been doing my serious research right now, trying to decide if I really want a 70D as my backup or a T5i. And honestly the ISO just isn't that great. It's slightly better than the 50D/T1i sensor but not leaps and bounds better. I will likely go with the 70D because I want the more advanced video as well as some other features of the camera. But having had my hands on it, I was just really disappointed by the real world high ISO results.

So, my point... make sure you have realistic expectations and I wouldn't go for it unless you're looking for more than an ISO upgrade because it's likely to disappoint there. And if ISO is your bottom line then spend a little bit more and get a 6D. The 6D on ISO 25600 is cleaner than the 50D at 3200 and you can get 6D refurbs nearly as cheap as a new 70D if you watch for Canon's sales. And I'm not saying this as someone who thinks full frame is everything... I honestly don't think you need full frame at all to make great images. It just happens that the 6D has amazing ISO performance and happens to be full frame. And with the price this camera is selling for it's a steal.

Thanks for the info. I was looking for an ISO upgrade with the 70D but based on what a few people on here have already told me, and yourself...I think I'll hold off on the upgrade and consider a lens with larger aperture instead.

I like the idea of the 6D, the only issue I have with a full frame is that I'd be starting from scratch again in regards to lenses. I don't think any of my current lenses will work with it.

I'm heading to B&H this weekend to play and explore all my options.

 

[Frantasmic]

Popular Photography gives a mixed review of the 70D in this month's edition. They love the new AF system, but like photo chick states, the actual performance increase over the 60D wasn't much in their eyes.

If you do decide on the 6D, wait and monitor the B and H site. About once a week, they will offer the 6D and their little promo package (tripod, SD card, case, and extra battery) for $1649 instead of the $1899 on the site right now. But, the deal frequently lasts only hours. Still, it is worth monitoring if that is what you decide on.