# Canon user: should I upgrade my body or lens?



## zess02 (Apr 12, 2014)

I have a Canon Rebel T1i, 1 EF-S 18-200mm 1:3.5-6.6 lens, and 1 EF 50mm 1:1.8 lens. I love to take landscape, nature, and food picture. 

My budget is about $1000-$1500. So I'm wondering should I use that money to upgrade body or lens? 

1. Body: my choice is Canon 6D

2. Lens: EF-S 10-22mm & EF 100mm f/2.8 macro?

Please let me know what you guys think?

Thank you so much!!!


----------



## JacaRanda (Apr 12, 2014)

Note that the 6D is not in the list of cameras able to accept EF-S lenses.

Canon EF-S lens mount - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## zess02 (Apr 12, 2014)

Thanks for the note. That's why I said should I upgrade body or lens? If I buy body, I have to wait for a while before I can upgrade new lens for 6D. So like you may have pointed out, it would be better to upgrade the lens first? Am I correct? Thanks


----------



## Gavjenks (Apr 12, 2014)

Lenses. As mentioned, the 50mm would be your only lens if you switched the body. And it's already a little over budget, so you wouldn't be able to supplement that.

Also, I suggest the Sigma 10-20mm instead of canon, save yourself $250 for no appreciable difference as far as I know in optical or build quality.

And if you want to be really frugal, you can get electrically connected (auto aperture retained) $50 extension tubes that would make your 50mm 1.8 fairly similar to a 100mm macro 2.8 at about the same magnification. You'd have a little less working distance and less flat of a field of focus, but they also work on any other lens (including allowing you to use EF-S lenses for macro on a full frame body if you do upgrade later and are really into macro)


----------



## zess02 (Apr 12, 2014)

how about the EF 100mm f/2.8 macro lens?


----------



## Gavjenks (Apr 12, 2014)

what are you MOST into? macro or landscape?


----------



## zess02 (Apr 12, 2014)

For now, it's both. I am still in the process of exploring but so far, I've enjoyed both. I don't have to stick with the options of EF-S 10-22mm & EF 100mm f/2.8 macro. I am open to other option you may recommend! Thanks


----------



## zess02 (Apr 12, 2014)

However, I do prefer landscape more


----------



## Gavjenks (Apr 12, 2014)

If both equally, those are pretty good choices (well still recommend using a third party for the ultra wide angle. Sigma or there are others too, the Canon one is overpriced compared to competition for that niche). Otherwise I would have come up with something that would go cheaper on one of them to maximize the other, but that sounds good.

Like, the tubes would be cheaper and thus eking out a little more money you could spend on other landscape stuff (like filters), but if you really do like macro just as much, the macro lens will be more convenient, and it's not a bank breaker. So yeah:

Sigma (or Tamron or whatever) 10-20mm
10mm Macro

That still only puts you at $700 or so, though.  If you'd like to actually go up to $1000, you could buy, on top of those, either:
A) A nice polarizing filter, a neutral density filter, and maybe a graduated neutral density filter, and a good tripod if you don't have one (nighttime starscapes, or blurred clouds and water with the ND?), for more control over landscapes. OR
B) a 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM, used is about $300. Better optically than the 18-200, better build quality, 100mm more, you will already have wider angles covered well enough between a 10-20 and a 50, significantly faster than the 18-200 at the tele end ranges, AND it's an EF lens so is expanding your collection of non EF-S lenses more (you could then even sell your 18-200 if you wanted, and use the money to get MOAR stuff, like both A and B for instance. Unless you really really want a do-it-all for compact vacation usage or something. But you can sell it for $300+)

edit: also the USM autofocus is faster and usually more accurate


----------



## zess02 (Apr 12, 2014)

Thank you very much! Really appreciate all your comments!

One last question though: I checked out the lens on Ebay and some seems to be cheaper and ship from Japan. Should I purchase it from Ebay or Amazon? I'm worried about the warranty.


----------



## zess02 (Apr 12, 2014)

[h=1]Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6: $429[/h][h=1]Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro: $599[/h]Total is 1049. How is it 700 like you said?


----------



## centauro74 (Apr 12, 2014)

But,  if you want to upgrade to FF in the future,  you shouldn't invest in EFS lens.


----------



## zess02 (Apr 12, 2014)

true, I check signma *10-20mm instead and it seems to work with 6D*


----------



## zess02 (Apr 12, 2014)

also, I am planning to buy a tripod as well so which one would you recommend? Sorry, too many questions, as you can tell, I am a newbie


----------



## Derrel (Apr 12, 2014)

zess02 said:


> how about the EF 100mm f/2.8 macro lens?



Can't really recommend this macro lens. It has ugly bokeh rendering...I own it, got it cheap used...I also own the Tamron 90mm AF-SP, which is MUCH "prettier" in the way it renders OOF highlights, which can and often are, a fairly big part of macro photos. The Canon 100mm EF, the "regular" one, not the new L, and not the "old" long-extending one, but *the standard, internal focusing EF f/2.8 model* that's been made for well over a decade is at best, an average imager in terms of how "pretty" it renders its images. 

Sigma's 105/2.8 EX-HSM is prettier; Tamron's 90mm AF-SP is a very pretty imager. Sigma's 150mm f/2.8 EX, the pre-OS model, is one of the most GORGEOUS imagers of any macro lens I've ever seen in my life...the Canon 100 EF is just "Mehhhhh." Ugly, 7-sided bokeh balls. Slowish focusing. Basically, lifeless image rendering. Just NOT a "pretty" lens drawing style; get the Tamron 90mm AF, used, from one of a zillion outlets if you want a NICE macro lens that make pictures that "look beautiful". Even Tokina's bargain 100mm f/2.8 AT-X has a prettier image rendering characteristic. In macro shooting, the "way a lens draws its images" is often a VERY big,big part of the final image's overall impact. The lens puts an impression on the pictures it makes, and this is probably most critical in macro, and in portrait shooting.

The whole body OR lens situation is difficult. I think the newer APS-C bodies have a lot going for them as long as the ISO levels are at 320 and lower, the image quality is very high, and the cost/performance ratio is VERY high on something like the 60D, since the 70D has caused its price to drop a bit. The Canon 10-22 EF-S probably has one thing over the Sigma that is a BIG deal: flare resistance....it's one of **the** biggest deals for landscapers when they pick out a wide-angle zoom...having the ability to put the sun right in the frame and not have the image flare and ghost is one of the 10-20 EF-S's strongest suits.


----------



## Gavjenks (Apr 12, 2014)

huh weird for some reason i looked it up and saw $299 for the macro lens. Now I can't figure out what it was I was actually looking up.


----------



## Gavjenks (Apr 12, 2014)

> true, I check signma *10-20mm instead and it seems to work with 6D*


Uh, I don't remember. I owned both at the same time briefly, and IIRC it didn't physically hit the mirror.  But it also won't fill the entire sensor. You'll have a crop sensor sized circle in the middle, at best, which is okay, but reduced resolution, and it's not like you get the full frame wide advantage with it as a result.


----------



## goodguy (Apr 12, 2014)

Personally I wouldnt think twice, I would get the 6D with a 50mm f1.8 lens and then slowly work my way to add more lenses.
I really like the 6D, awesome camera!!!
The t1i is an old tired camera and while I am sure it still can produce nice pictures I would kick it to the curve and get the 6D


----------

