Welcome to the forum!

As an adjunct to the Tangents blog, the intention with this forum is to answer any questions, and allow a diverse discussion of topics related photography. With that, see it as an open invitation to just climb in and start threads and to respond to any threads.

Canon cameras and lenses - Upgrades and/or Additions?

dbrunodbruno Member
edited December 2016 in Canon
I have been actively pursuing adding a lens to my collection, and I'm pretty convinced it should be a 70-200 mm F2.8 with stabilization. The one I believe is affordable while producing a great photo is the Tamron - half the price of Canon, better image quality than Sigma. I have a Tamron 24-70 F2.8 with VC, a Canon 24-105 F4 L IS, and a Canon 50 mm F1.4. All three of these I use for events.

But now, reading about how the 5D Mark 4 is not that much of an upgrade from the Mark 3, I have been looking at lightly-used Mark 3s.

I have had my 6D for a little over a year now, and it was a big improvement over the T3i which I started out with. It has really good low-light capabilities, is full-frame, and I have enjoyed it. I do almost all Corporate Events, and need the low-light performance.

So now I've got a bit of a dilemma. Do I add the lens, or do I upgrade the camera. The long lens would certainly come in handy for large, auditorium/ballroom events when there are speakers or performers. But I'm not sure what I would get from upgrading the camera. I know the AF system has 61 cross-type points, but 99% of the time I am on the center point, using "focus-and-recompose".

Any thoughts anyone? I can only do one change/upgrade, unless people start hiring me more than 2-3 times a month.

Thanks - Dave

Comments

  • Hi Dave,

    As a Canon shooter, I would stick with the 6D and get the lens. When funds allow, jump right into the MarkIV. I would skip the Mark III for now as its dated. (Don't get me wrong, its a great camera. Its just 4 year old technology.) Not that you asked, but the Mark IV may not be a super jump in image quality over the mark III but the autofocus is faster, touch screen (love it for viewing and zooming images) and all the focus points work;) + more. Hope that helps....

    PS...I have a Mark II with grip for sale:) 

    -Jay


  • dbrunodbruno Member
    edited December 2016
    Thanks, Jay. I had heard the Mark IV was not a giant leap from the Mark III, so I figured I might be able to grab one for a good price (meaning the Mark III).

    I do lack the "long throw" of the 200 mm sometimes when in a big conference hall. A couple of times, I've used my T3i and the 24-105 when I absolutely have to get closer (1.6x). So I may stick with this route going after the lens.

    Dave
  • Neil vNNeil vN Administrator
    I don't think there is enough of a jump between the 6D and the 5D mk3 to warrant jumping to the mk3 ... over, let's say, a lens that you need. 
  • Thanks, Neil. What I glean from that is the 6D is a pretty decent camera in your view, so that's a good thing.
  • TonyTTonyT Member
    edited December 2016
    Dave...
    For me a lens purchase would take priority over  a camera upgrade, imo building up a set of quality lenses will help you out more than the next upgrade of camera. 

    I see some amazing images on the forums (tangents) etc. then you see the camera used which can be anything from 8ys old like the 5D mkII to the latest released. One thing that remains a constant though, is that the lenses used are all quality glass.

    I've found the 70-200 lens to be a much more flexible lens than I thought it would be, I love using it and produces some lovely images even though it's not the king of 70-200's (cannon f/2.8) being an f/4 L IS but still is a fantastic lens. If you're making money from your photography I'd save for the  f/2.8 version.

    I'm looking forward to getting one of the sigma art lenses.
  • Thanks for the input, Tony. I've had my eye on the Tamron, after reading reviews that it outperforms the Sigma version. Also, I feel it's necessary to have IS or VC, especially on that long of a lens, so that drives up the cost. I don't do a lot of "stationary" photography, exclusively events right now corporate and private. I would like to stick my toe in the headshot waters, and this lens I'm considering I know would be good for it.

    Happy Holidays!

    Dave
  • Dave... I did read a review on various 70-200 lenses and the Tamron came out very well indeed certainly worth considering for that f/2.8 aperture when compared to the price of the canon f/2.8.

    Merry Xmas Dave and to all Tangents followers. 


  • dbrunodbruno Member
    Took the plunge today on the Tamron 70-200 mm F2.8 VC (A009) Got it as an open-box demo from a camera store in Canada. Comes with a 6-year Tamron warranty (good). Canadian (not so good). If something goes wrong, I would have to get it back to the store, but they would send it for repair and get it back to me no shipping charges (OK, not so bad).

    I'm thinking this could be my last lens purchase for a while. I think I have things pretty well covered:

    Canon EF 50mm F1.4
    Canon EF 24-105 F4 L IS
    Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VC
    Tamron 70-200 F2.8 VC

    Sigma 17-50 mm F2.8 OS (for my 600D)

    Dave
  • TrevTrev Moderator
    Sounds like a pretty good deal Dave. :)
  • dbrunodbruno Member
    edited January 5
    Trev - After watching one-owner, slightly-used copies on EBay, I went with this one. It was more money than I wanted to spend, but I had looked long enough to know.
  • Neil vNNeil vN Administrator
    Dave ... sounds like you have everything covered now with that selection! 
  • Neil - I think so, really. The only other one I could think of would be an 85 or 100 mm F1.2-1.4 for doing portraits. But I don't do portraits.

    The new lens is a beast. Fantastic condition, as it should be as an "open box" demo from a camera store. I'm glad I went with an "open box" instead of used. What I didn't realize is the zoom is all done internally - no trombone action. The darn thing is long enough already.
  • I've recently sold all my Canon gear and moved over to Nikon. I've been a Canon user for many years ( I sound like an addict), I have been wanting to upgrade for some time now and it seemed like the sensible choice. I splashed out on a couple of D750's and the sigma 35mm art. I've used the 35mm art before and loved it so I knew it would on the list. Next on the list is the Tamron 24-70 vc f2.8 and the Tamron 70-200 vc f2.8 as I've read good reports about them and image quality goes above Nikon and a bit cheaper. Speedlights I've gone for Neewer as I've never bought or would buy Canon or Nikon, quality is excellent, and Godox triggers. Then all that's left is to find is a suitable wide angle and macro. 
  • I read many reviews about the differences between the Canon, Tamron, and Sigma 70-200mm lenses. The Tamron was better than the Sigma by a fair amount, and approaching the Canon. So I just got it. Same reason for my purchase of the 24-70mm, but with one big thing - it's the only one stabilized in that focal range. I do a lot of events, and feel I need it. I'm really happy with it.

    Dave
Sign In or Register to comment.