Which piece of equipment is holding me back?

Question

I am primarily an amateur photographer but I do take small jobs from time to time. I'm looking to upgrade my equipment but I'm not sure if I should be spending money on my body, glass, or both. I have two common issues that I'd like to improve.

• I shoot a lot at ice rinks and find that even in servo mode I get a lot of shots that are slightly out of focus. I try to keep the AF target on face masks but many shots will come out focused an inch or two off (ears, hands, etc). I'm shooting F/1.8-F/2.8 to get action stopping shutter speeds so you can really tell when the focus is even a hair off. I don't know if this is a limitation of my camera, lens, or the human operator.

• Most of my paid work is indoors shooting candids where a flash is inappropriate. I feel like I need to use a higher F-number to get more subject in focus but I usually can't do it without upping to ISO 3200 unless I'm using a flash. By the time I clean up the high ISO noise in Camera Raw I end up with an image lacking detail. So far this hasn't been a big problem because the photos are typically used in magazine prints only an inch or two wide but it's still driving me nuts.

Here is the equipment currently in my bag:

• Canon Rebel T2i
• Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II (no IS)
  • Collecting dust, came with my old Rebel XTi.
• Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS
  • Purchased with my T2i. This is my workhorse lens but I'm disappointed with the soft images it produces at higher focal lengths. Stopping down makes the images acceptable but that's not always an option. My eyes want more contrast and color but considering how inexpensive this lens is I can't really complain.
• Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
  • This was purchased with an older camera and doesn't get used much anymore. The images are too soft beyond 200mm and the AF seems sluggish.
• Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM
  • I am extremely happy with the images I get from this lens. I use it indoors all the time and also paired with extension tubes for some macro work. Some of my best ice hockey images have been from this lens even though I didn't have sports in mind for this lens.

My initial plan was to upgrade to a 60D or 7D body but after doing some reading it occurred to me that I might invest in better glass first. I'm unsure of what will help improve focusing, image quality, high ISO shooting, etc. Maybe it's a new camera, new glass, photography lessons, or a little of everything?

I'm looking to keep my next round of purchases under $3,000 and am willing to trade in some of my used equipment to offset costs. Would anyone care to make a recommendation? I'm looking at the EOS 60D and 7D bodies. Not sure if the 7D is overkill for my needs. I'm also looking at the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM lens to be my new workhorse but I'm concerned that it may not be wide enough on an APS-C body and the lack of IS might be an issue. There's also the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM but I'm thinking it wouldn't be wise to spend all my budget on that lens right now (or maybe not?).

Answer 1

I would gravitate to lens choices over the body. There's a couple of reasons...

1. The lenses will be useful in the future when another opportunity to purchase arises.

2. Fast glass, such as f/2.8 zooms, are very helpful in low light. These are, often, pro grade lenses as well, so that helps sharpness.

In the end result, you'll have these lenses for years, the bodies will come and go. So, that investment will pay long term dividends starting now. The other thing to keep in mind, cameras like the 7D will start to appear on the used market and so you may find you'll have budget when that happens and you'll have nice lenses for it when it does.

Now, having said that, the big upside to a 7D now is the speed of the camera. The frame rate is high and that helps a lot in the situations you shoot in. A common technique in these environments is to shoot a bunch of frames of the same scene, it ups the odds that one is sharp.

Still, I'd go lenses first if you have a cap on spending.

Answer 2

what's holding you back is that you are too gear-minded. Rather than thinking "I have this gear, now how can I use it to do what I want to do", you're thinking "what new gear do I need to do what I want to do". That way you will always be "held back", because you're never going to actually fully use what you have, will constantly be worrying about what you don't have yet.

Answer 3

There are lots of good lens recommendations being made, but I'd like to also suggest the Canon 135mm f/2L. For hockey shooting I assume you're away from the action so the longer focal length shouldn't be a problem. The f/2 lens will give you an additional stop of light over the f/2.8 lenses, and this lens is often cited as one of (if not) the sharpest lenses in Canon's lineup.

As an event shooter, I often used this as my "from the back of the room" lens and it worked out really well.

Answer 4

You are right to be looking at the 60D and the 7D. If you are into sport shooting, as it appears you are, then the 7D will suit you better. That will help you dramatically with the focus issues, and it'll give you a slight boost in ISO performance as well.

As far as lenses, you should consider two things. First of all, a 70-200mm lens would serve you very well for the ice rink shots.

For the indoor work, it depends on what kind of work it is. If you are the type to get really close, you might consider getting a prime lens that will help you to get close, or the 17-55mm 2.8.

If you get these 3 things, I think you'd do well.

• 17-55mm 2.8 $1,180
• 70-200mm 4.0 $700
• Canon 7D $1700

Total: $3,680

It's a bit more than you wanted, but these prices are Canon's, brand new. If you look at a site like BH photo video, or Amazon, you should be able to find some better deals.

Answer 5

For the body, stepping up to the x0D range will get you a little better IQ on higher ISO, allowing you to keep the shutter speeds and stop down the iris to get more DOF. Assuming you stick with a crop sensor format then your current glass will all be able to come along. The kit lens on a 60D is one you already have, so skip that and go body only... a 60D body can be had for $1000, leaving $2000 in your budget for a nice fast lens.

As far as glass goes, if you have any aspirations to ever move up to "bigger and better" cameras, stop buying EF-S glass now. The 17-55 f/2.8 you mentioned is a nice lens, and can be had for $1200 most places. If you're doing a lot of hockey, you could also look at the 70-200 f/2.8L which can usually be had for $1500. It doesn't have IS, but with a constant 2.8 all the way out to 200mm you're going to get enough light coming in that combined with a higher ISO capable back you're probably going to be ok with just supporting it on the boards with your arm. (I'm assuming a tripod/monopod is out of the question.)

Another thing you might consider is spending some of that budget on upgraded workflow software. Lightroom (and Aperture) in my experience can ususally get better quality results when you really have to dig deep into the raw to get an image than the bundled software from Canon does, and give better tooling than camera raw alone, or even camera raw as an input to photoshop. Unlike the back or the glass, that's one you can preview for free... (at least lightroom, not sure about aperture) just download the demo and pull in some of your shots that you were less than thrilled with and see what you can do with them.

Answer 6

I have shot some youth basketball recently and find the 70-200 2.8L IS to be invaluable, it is the only lens I use on the court. The IS is not necessary, but I do not think I would by this lens without it.

For wide angle, the 16-35 2.8L is the choice for me, but I just bought it to replace the 17-55 2.8 which I do not like.

I don't think you can go wrong with L glass and I agree that for shooting sports IS is not necessary.

My current body is a 7D which I like a lot, the 50D was just ok, I have not tried the 60D.

If I were you, I would spend the money on the 70-200 2.8L IS, and start saving for the 16-35 2.8L.

If you are still in doubt rent a couple of them and give them a test drive, or buy from a reputable dealer where you can return them if you are not satisfied.

Answer 7

I had the 450D and upgraded to the 7D recently, and am quite sure its a much better camera for action/sports (not that this was my motivation), but I think the improvement you'll get out of a more appropriate lens (something with USM to replace the 18-135!) will be more significant than the improved focus tracking in the 7D.

Given how much you like the 50mm, maybe its worth investing in another prime to keep costs down?

It really depends how much the distance varies between you and the 'action'. If you're using much the same focal length for half an hour at a time, then you might do well to invest in a ~30mm prime and one or two of the 85mm, 100mm, 135mm primes. There's L and non-L options for each.

Wider than 50mm

• Canon 28mm f/1.8 USM ~$350 — this would be my pick
• Canon 24mm f/1.4L II USM ~$1700
• Canon 35mm f/1.4L USM ~$1200

Longer than 50mm

• Canon 85mm f/1.8 USM ~$400 — this is probably the most appropriate
• Canon 85mm f/1.2L USM ~$1800
• Canon 100mm f/2 USM ~$400
• Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM ~$500 — or this if you like macro
• Canon 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM ~$900 — or this if you crave IS too!
• Canon 135mm f/2L USM ~$1000

It's probably also worth remembering that your photos can be heavily cropped and still have sufficient resolution for a 2-inch wide magazine print, so shooting with a prime even half the focal length you'd ideally select on the zoom may be OK. That said, even a low quality zoom will produce a sharper image once scaled down that far, so its probably much the same either way.

If you need the zoom due to rapid/regular change in focal lengths, then a replacement for the 18-135 'workhorse' would depend on what focal lengths you really value in that lens (especially if you're happy to use the 50mm and a zoom lens that's only wider/longer as needed)

Similar range zooms to the 18-135mm

• Canon 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM ~$400 — not L but better image quality and cheap!
• Canon 24-105mm f/4L IS USM ~$1100 — L quality, better quality again
• Canon 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM ~$2300 — L quality, loooong (but not very wide)

Wider / Longer zooms (if you mainly use one end of the 18-135mm?)

• Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM ~$1000 — wide aperture thanks to shorter zoom ratio
• Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 USM ~$1100 — wide aperture as above

Of course, apart from the 70-200 you're losing about 2-3 stops compared to equivalent primes (the 70-200 only loses 1 stop)

Answer 8

The first and last piece of equipment that is holding you back is yourself.

Unless you have very specific technical requirements (e.g. 5x macro), you can frequently improve your photos by investing in expanding your creativity rather than your equipment.

Shoot the best you can with what you have - you will develop as a photographer faster.

Answer 9

Your problem as I understand is to get better shots given low light. For indoor subjects and variable movement and distance, you need multiple lenses, so you won't solve the general problem with one lens upgrade. You have one lens with F1.4, and 2 in the F3 range. For purpose of comparison, you can get one stop improvement for maybe a couple hundred bucks (F3.5 -> 2.5), and then you're spending $500-1000 for fractions of a stop regardless of focal length. That's not much more light for your money. On the other hand, T2 is old. For $500 you can get something that shoots 3200 iso with much less noise. This is my vote. If you can, making the leap to full frame will give you more out of the same lenses.

There are other gear that might be considered: a good tripod and adapting your photo style to it's strengths and limits. Indoor light is low. You can't force your way past this, so a little blur is to be expected. Use it stylishly. Finally, go where the light is brightest and look for natural reflectors that highlight your subject-- I'm assuming an actual reflector is not an option if flash isn't.

The lens over camera heuristic is a bit over-played these days.

Answer 10

You mentioned you major problems are accurate focus in large apertures and high noise in high ISO. My understanding is that you already have very fast lenses (correct me if I'm wrong). I can't see how buying a new lens will solve these particular problems. Especially, the noise problem, the only way to deal with that is to get a body with a better (larger) sensor. Then, a 5DMkII is the logical option. If budget is a concern, and since you don't need movie mode (do you?), then a used 5D may do a great work for you.

Answer 11

Your primary weak point is your lenses. They're all variable aperture, budget lenses.

The difference between the EF-S 17-55mm F/2.8 and the 18-55mm kit lens is very noticeable, as an example. I did exactly this and never went back. In fact, I won't buy a zoom lens until I can get it at F/2.8. A stop is a lot of light to be gaining, not to mention the benefits of the better glass. Even if it costs a lot more.

• F/2.8 for the same exposure at all focal lengths.
• Very good image stabilisation.
• Significantly reduced chromatic aberrations.
• Sharper overall.
• Faster, silent auto focus with USM.
• Less barrelling and/or pin-cushioning.

If you are inclined to get a full frame body, I'd be inclined to get two lenses at least.

• 24-70mm F/2.8L
• 70-200mm F/2.8L

You won't regret it.