# Upgrade body or lens?



## mrelsewhere (Oct 15, 2011)

I've been shooting small theatrical events (recitals and short plays- no flash) using a 550D and two basic lenses (18-55mm IS and 50mm f/1.8). Now that I have a small budget ($350-400), I'd like to invest in equipment that gets me more keepers, fewer out-of-focus shots. I've read that the 50mm f/1.4 focuses quicker than the f/1.8, and I've also read that the 60D has a better autofocus system and a quieter shutter.

Should I upgrade to the 60D, or buy a better lens like the 50mm f/1.4? Or should I keep saving?


----------



## shootermcgavin (Oct 15, 2011)

I tried to 50mm 1.4 and didn't notice a big difference, not enough to justify the cost of it.  For what you're shooting though it might be huge if you can't use a flash and really need that extra bit.  Maybe buy one from a store the next time you have something to shoot and if you dont' like it return it.  I know there's like 15 days here to return a lens.  Whatever you decide I'm sure you'll want something else next month, that's just the way it goes...


----------



## Overread (Oct 15, 2011)

Personally, in your situation, I would go for the 50mm f1.4 over the body upgrade. The 50mm f1.4 gives you more light to work with from the wider max aperture, so that means a bit more light for your AF system to work with and the added bonus that the lens has a USM motor and fulltime manual focusing; combine that with backbutton AF control (check your manual/google) and you can quickly shift between auto focus and manual focus as needed without having to flick the AF/MF switch on the lens body (good for when AF has problems getting a lockon in certain conditions). 

You could also consider the Sigma 50mm f1.4 which is a newer design lens than the canon and generally beats it in reviews and side by side testing. 



That is what I would do with your current budget; however if you've the option of saving for longer you might want to consider the fullframe market - the 5D (second hand/reconditioned) would be an ideal option for expanding your usable ISO range in those dim, no flash situations. The wider angle of view might also mean that you would need to consider using an 85mm or even 135mm lenses instead of the 50mm since you would get a much wider field of view with the 50mm on the 5D than you do on the crop sensor cameras. This is something that you'll want to try out in a shop or local camera club just to get a feel for how it works for you.


----------



## Boyun (Oct 15, 2011)

Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS


----------



## analog.universe (Oct 15, 2011)

Overread said:


> Personally, in your situation, I would go for the 50mm f1.4 over the body upgrade. The 50mm f1.4 gives you more light to work with from the wider max aperture, so that means a bit more light for your AF system to work with and the added bonus that the lens has a USM motor and fulltime manual focusing; combine that with backbutton AF control (check your manual/google) and you can quickly shift between auto focus and manual focus as needed without having to flick the AF/MF switch on the lens body (good for when AF has problems getting a lockon in certain conditions).
> 
> You could also consider the Sigma 50mm f1.4 which is a newer design lens than the canon and generally beats it in reviews and side by side testing.
> 
> ...



^ :thumbup:


----------



## jaomul (Oct 15, 2011)

Boyun said:


> Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS



^^ Not this. Its a good lens but not a low light lens


----------



## dakkon76 (Oct 15, 2011)

With your budget you can't afford a camera body that's going to give you  great performance at high ISO, so a new body is out of the question.

I've got the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 and love it for portraits... but not so much for any sort of event because of the fixed focal length. Sigma also makes a 17-50mm f/2.8 that is supposed to be a great lens for low-light. It's a bit beyond your budget at $669, but not by much. Personally, if I were doing a lot of indoor events, then I'd invest in a good zoom with a wider aperture, such as the 17-50mm. If 17mm is wider than you'd ever need on your crop, then consider canon's 24-70, which will give you quite a bit of reach on your crop sensor. Beyond that, a 70-200mm f/2.8... however that may be too long, depending on what type of stage shots you prefer.

So I guess my answer is... if you love your 50mm, then decide if you'd like it to go wider at times, or zoom in more. That will tell you which lens would be ideal for you. I say keep saving, personally. A zoom will give you much more flexibility for the type of photography you do... but you _have_ to have a lot of light for where you shoot, so you really need a constant f/2.8 zoom.


----------



## mrelsewhere (Oct 18, 2011)

Thanks for the help, everyone, and especially Overread and dakkon76! I decided to go with the 50mm f/1.4 after trying it out and comparing it to the f/1.8. It's much more solid and responsive and sharp in low light. No, it's not as flexible as the zooms, but at least I know what I'm getting when I fill the frame. Guess I'll have to start saving for those L lenses...maybe I'll sell a kidney...


----------



## tlawyer123 (Oct 19, 2011)

mrelsewhere said:
			
		

> Thanks for the help, everyone, and especially Overread and dakkon76! I decided to go with the 50mm f/1.4 after trying it out and comparing it to the f/1.8. It's much more solid and responsive and sharp in low light. No, it's not as flexible as the zooms, but at least I know what I'm getting when I fill the frame. Guess I'll have to start saving for those L lenses...maybe I'll sell a kidney...



The lense I would say


----------



## mangtarn (Oct 21, 2011)

not to sound rude but the better question would be "which lens should i get?" because a budget of 350-400 is nowhere near a body (I paid ~1000 for my new 60D)

I wouldn't get another prime lens especially with the exact same focal length even though it is faster. I would upgrade your 18-55 to a tamron 17-50 f/2.8 due to it's exceptional image quality for the price (around 400 in north america)

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## jake337 (Oct 21, 2011)

Everyone forgot to ask how close you can get.  Using a wider angle lens like a 35mm or wider will let use use slower shutterspeeds and still achieve in focus shots.


----------



## MLeeK (Oct 21, 2011)

Well, I wouldn't upgrade from an entry level body to another used entry level body and that's all your budget would allow. The 60D doesn't fall anywhere near it. And it really isn't much of an upgrade from where you are anyway, so that would be kind of a waste.
So, it's lens. 
You need to replace that 18-55. Its a WEAK link. You'll need an f/2.8 lens. To replace that lens with like the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 falls at the upper end of your budget or just over. 
I prefer the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 over it. I have both. Or any of the awesome primes, but the angle of a prime not having a zoom probably wouldn't work well for me in that situation. Personal style? Yes. Probably. 

When it comes down to brass tacks I really doubt your focus problems have anything to do with your lenses but what your settings are. If you are using auto or Aperture priority your shutter speed is probably the culprit. 
If you are using aperture priority (which MANY beginners are using beautifully) switch to shutter priority in this case. Set your shutter at about 1/200. If it is people who aren't moving you can drop it down to 1/160 or MAYBE 1/125. 
If your settings are flashing at you your camera is not getting exposure. Raise your ISO until you get exposure. Remember that your screen shows things darker than it will be on your computer. NEVER underexpose your image in an attempt to keep the ISO lower. It will make it far worse if you raise the exposure in post. If anything SLIGHTLY over exposed is better when at high ISO's. I don't mean out of this world over, but SLIGHTLY. No blow outs.


----------

