Best upgrade lens for 400-500D

[Schweppy]

I have been playing around with the 40D kit lens (17-85mm IS) for quite a while and although its a perfect range, the low light performance is not great at all.

What else is there in that range that would be a better all rounder and is it worth going with a combo, like a 10-20mm sigma and 50mm canon?

I will be needed a walkabout lens mainly for next year when i will be travelling quite a bit.

Cheers

 

[DanFreemanPhoto]

Your low light performance is down to the body. You can get faster lenses (ie ones that go down to f2.8 or less) but that wont solve the problem.

I know very little about Canon lenses so I cant really help you that much, but is looking into a newer body out of the question?

 

[Schweppy]

You mean like a 40/50D?

Dont really want anything bigger as i will not have much room for my own stuff!

 

[dunganick]

What body is it for? a 400d 500d or 40d?

As said low light performance mainly comes from how well the body can pull off high iso's.
Upgrading the body to a 500d or 50d will get you better iso performance.

If you want a lens with that range the fastest lens you will find will be an f2.8.

Maybe something like the Sigma 28-70 or 24-70 (both f2.8)

 

[Andy.]

50D high ISO is not that much better than the 40 from what I have seen.

If you have some cash saved, you can always buy a pricey second hand one and sell it off again when you get back. If you buy well, it shouldn't cost you a penny.

Do you use 17mm much? Although 24mm is only a few mm difference on paper, it has a large impact on the camera. I sold my old 24-105 to somebody with a 40D and they sold it off again within the week as they could not live with the field of view.

The most highly recommended canon efs (crop) lens, seems to be the 17-55 f2.8 IS. You loose your long end, but it more than makes up for it in other areas.

 

[dunganick]

50D high ISO is not that much better than the 40 from what I have seen.

Ive found it to be quite a bit better.

ISO 3200 on the 40d is about the same noise level as ISO 6400 on the 50d

Having said which at these levels neither produce particularly nice photos if they will come under close inspection.

ISO 6400

 

[Ian]

I'm planning to skip the ##D range and go straight for a 5Dm2 probably. Will take a while to save for, but for me the 40/50D just isn't worth upgrading to. Not sure that's the answer you're after though, as it'll set you back about £1500 lol. I'm not sure how the second hand pro Canon bodies hold up at higher ISO, but they may be worth a look.

 

[vibrio]

not quite true since faster lenses let more light in and an f2.8 or faster lens will use cross hair focusing onthe centre point so will be better in low light

Your low light performance is down to the body. You can get faster lenses (ie ones that go down to f2.8 or less) but that wont solve the problem.

I know very little about Canon lenses so I cant really help you that much, but is looking into a newer body out of the question?

 

[JJ!]

Buy a 50mm f1.8 for £70 from Kerso on talkphotography. Great lens at a great price! No idea how your camera handles high ISO, but the 500D has been excellent for me.

But you might also want to consider the Tamron 17-50 f2.8, excellent lens and 3 times cheaper than the canon f2.8!

 

[vibrio]

I'm planning to skip the ##D range and go straight for a 5Dm2 probably. Will take a while to save for, but for me the 40/50D just isn't worth upgrading to. Not sure that's the answer you're after though, as it'll set you back about £1500 lol. I'm not sure how the second hand pro Canon bodies hold up at higher ISO, but they may be worth a look.

af in the 40D is better than the 5D2

 

[GeordieClioDriver]

What do you mean by perform? As is image quality or focus speed?

 

[vibrio]

50D high ISO is not that much better than the 40 from what I have seen.

s.

it is actually worse, 50D has more NR applied to the images. 40D is a bit better overall but both are around a stop worse than the 5d2.

 

[vibrio]

What do you mean by perform? As is image quality or focus speed?

40D is more accurate in sports and low light. the outer focus points of the 5d2 are pretty much a waste of time in low light

 

[DanFreemanPhoto]

not quite true since faster lenses let more light in and an f2.8 or faster lens will use cross hair focusing onthe centre point so will be better in low light

Yes, but then you have to go around shooting at f2.8 all the time, which isnt really practical.

I upgraded my body which is much better at higher ISO and it much more effective than getting faster lenses (which are not cheap either)

 

[GeordieClioDriver]

40D is more accurate in sports and low light. the outer focus points of the 5d2 are pretty much a waste of time in low light

sorry, this was aimed for the thread starter! :approve:

 

[dunganick]

it is actually worse, 50D has more NR applied to the images. 40D is a bit better overall but both are around a stop worse than the 5d2.

Well im pretty bored, so ive done a quick comparison. Same settings, taken on a tripod etc... (both cameras have all noise reduction features turned on as i use them like this...)

I will say my feelings are that pixel for pixel the 40d is sharper, however its noise handling is worse, albeit it seems to pick up a larger colour range at high ISO than the 50d, but then cant display these colours without noise in them. (the red part of the strap in the 3200 photos)

For what its worth i actually find the AF better on the 40d. And if i didnt need the higher ISO expansion of the 50d i would have simply bought another 40d. So i am in no way biased towards the 50d, if i felt the 40d was better at handling high ISO i could of saved £200-300

40d ISO 1600:

50d ISO 1600:

40d ISO 3200:

50d ISO 3200:

Im unsure why there is a difference in colours between shots, both cameras have had AWB, factory colour spacings, and Adobe RGB used.

Sorry to the OP for hijacking this thread. I agree with Shaddow' a better ISO performance body would be a smart move.

 

[Jungle_Jim]

i think the difference in noise and sharpness is cause by the algorithms for the noise reduction. so whilst the 50d has a lot less noise this comes at the cost of image sharpness. if the 40d has the same noise reduction algorithm it wouldnt be as sharp. As the noise levels can appear reduced by softening the image.

anyways as for camera body upgrades have you looked at the canon 7d, its what i am after, seems to be packed full of usefull stuff and can be picked up at around £1100

 

[vibrio]

it don't work like that, aperture blades only close down apon shutter going so you get the cross hair AF point(s) wither you choose f2.8 or f22

Yes, but then you have to go around shooting at f2.8 all the time, which isnt really practical.

I upgraded my body which is much better at higher ISO and it much more effective than getting faster lenses (which are not cheap either)

 

[dunganick]

it don't work like that, aperture blades only close down apon shutter going so you get the cross hair AF point(s) wither you choose f2.8 or f22

But to get the light gathering advantages of f2.8 you do by nature have to shoot f2.8. I think that is Shaddows' point.

 

[meady100]

Talking of noise, has anyone tried Neat Image noise reduction? I've got it and it's stunning. Feel free to post a photo at 100% and I will run it through for you and prepare for your jaw to drop!