An upgrading question...

Roy Rogers

Right, I'm thinking of doing a fairly substantial upgrade of my kit over the summer, as if some plans go ahead, I'm not going to have much disposable income in the following 12-18 months. I'm trying to piece together my options, and I've a conundrum that, hopefully, more experienced users can help with.

My current kit is a Canon EOS 1000D with 18-55mm kit lens, 50mm f/1.8, Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO DG, and a 430EX II. I'm happy with the nifty fifty and 70-300, but would like to upgrade in the wide-to-mid range.

The two options I'm tossing up are:

A) Upgrade the body to either a 40D or 50D (leaning towards the 40D for better high-ISO performance... but don't want to start this debate again ) and get a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 to replace the Canon 18-55.
Rough cost: body €700-800, lens €350

Keep my 1000D body and invest in a really good piece of glass, like the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 L.
Rough cost: €1100-1200

As for what I'm going to be using it for: mostly street photography. I'd say the mid-lengths would be my most used.

My issues with going down the L route would be that I think I'd miss the 18-24mm range... when I do use the kit lens, I definitely use the wider end more. Also, I've only really started making an effort in photography in the last year or so (it's basically a year since I got the DSLR... was using a G9 before that), so I'm worrying that I mightn't really know how to get the most out of serious glass.

Another point I'm bearing in mind is that the internet seems to think the 60D is just about to be announced, which -- I presume -- will knock a chunk off the price of the 50D and any 40Ds that are still knocking around.

Any opinions or advice would be much appreciated!

jpb1974

"My issues with going down the L route would be that I think I'd miss the 18-24mm range"


Why not try the Canon 17-40 F4 L?

It sounds like it would suit your requirements... especially if you want a wide angle lens suitable for street photography... and it's one of the cheaper Canon L lenses.

1000D, 40D, 50D... they're all a bit the same really IMO.

I have a 5D MKII, 40D and 400D... prefer the 400D for street... smaller and lighter than the other two.

Rb

17-40 F4L would suit your requirements way better than the 24-70 2.8, it's also significantly cheaper so you could probably upgrade your body to a 40D too if you paid a little more than the price of the 24-70 by itself.

With that being said, if you're keeping the 1000D and are getting an L lens I'd recommend you buy a battery grip, particularly with the 24-70 as it'll knock the balance off the little body completely.

CabanSail

If you are looking at going Wide but want to keep things small why not get the Sigma 10-20mm (or similar) It would give you that wide end & you are not lugging around full frame glass for a cropped body. It's a really good lens if you want to get in close.

Roy Rogers

Hmm, might look into the 17-40 so. To be honest, I'd kinda discounted that based on the aperture; I'd like to keep my low-light options as broad as possible.

That said, if I can pick up a 40D and the 17-40 for a little more outlay, I might still be able to get some better low-light shots... Food for thought anyway!

Rb: thanks for the tip about the grip. Will keep that in mind.

CabanSail: I'm not really looking to go wide-wide, more just to keep the wide-end of a standard zoom lens. My main goal in this is to replace the kit lens.

Thanks for the advice! I won't be making any purchases for another month or two at least, so will keep looking around.