L glass on XSi?

[LauraSAnne]

So, I started doing Portrait Photography part time to save up to get some new gear (then eventually do Photography as a main source of income). Right now I'm working with an XSi with 85mm 1.8, 50mm 1.8, 55-250mm (that I NEVER use), and the kit lens.

My plan was to save up to get the Mark 5D ii within a year, and then follow up with the 35mm f/1.4L after that.

But then I got to thinking, if I get the new body, I'll still be using the mediocre lenses with it....and what's the point of that since I'm not very happy with my lenses anyway (besides the 85mm)?

Is it a good idea to put an L glass on the XSi? I realize it's not going to be as awesome as the 5D ii but I will see a substantial difference, no? It just seems like going for the L glass first will benefit me more than going with the body first.

Your thoughts (or examples?! )?

[Eastree]

You're on the right path: Glass before body.

[inkista]

It's a good idea, just keep in mine that L glass can be overkill, and since they're all designed for film/full-frame, sometimes they may not always be the best fit for a crop body camera.

OTOH, I bought an EF 400mm f/5.6L USM to go birding with on my XT. It cost me about $1100. I've used it for over four years. If I look for one used, I could probably find one for about $900-$1000. $200 for four years' use. Not bad. My XT, otoh, cost me $900 (with kit lens). So let's say the body was about $800 when it was new. It is now broken up in parts bins at Canon. I got to use it for four and a half years. It was, when I got rid of it as a broken camera, worth about $350 in trade-in for my refurbed 50D body through the CLP. Used and working, you can probably find them around $250-$300. So, ~$500 for the same four years' use, and now it's completely worthless and non-usable.

The big difference here, is that I can still use that 400/5.6L. And will probaby continue to do so for some years to come. And I'm still only going to be losing about $200-$300 out of the deal if I do decide to sell it and trade in for something else.

Yeah, I'd say get the 35/1.4L, first. That's one that will definitely still be useful on both full frame and crop body. Glass depreciates a lot more slowly than electronics. And the Holy Trinity of L primes (35L, 85L, 135L) is more than capable of holding value in the long run. The best money I ever spent was on my 135L.


Canon XT (350D), EF 135mm f/2L USM. iso 800. f/2. 1/1600s. SOOC jpeg.

[LauraSAnne]

Thank you thank you! I'm so glad that I really stopped to think about this before pursuing the body further.

I think the 35mm will be one I'll hold on to for a very long time and once I do upgrade to the 5D ii, I'll get to fully appreciate the lens. I just need something to work with right now. My 50mm died a couple months ago and it just hasn't been the same since it was repaired--very very noisy (and I don't want to put anymore money into non L glass). I also love my 85mm, but it's not a very fast lens and that causes a lot of issues for me.

But even better, the glass is half the cost of the body so I'll be able to get it much sooner than I was anticipating. Very happy!

[SusanH1970]

Originally Posted by inkista

It's a good idea, just keep in mine that L glass can be overkill, and since they're all designed for film/full-frame, sometimes they may not always be the best fit for a crop body camera.

OTOH, I bought an EF 400mm f/5.6L USM to go birding with on my XT. It cost me about $1100. I've used it for over four years. If I look for one used, I could probably find one for about $900-$1000. $200 for four years' use. Not bad. My XT, otoh, cost me $900 (with kit lens). So let's say the body was about $800 when it was new. It is now broken up in parts bins at Canon. I got to use it for four and a half years. It was, when I got rid of it as a broken camera, worth about $350 in trade-in for my refurbed 50D body through the CLP. Used and working, you can probably find them around $250-$300. So, ~$500 for the same four years' use, and now it's completely worthless and non-usable.

The big difference here, is that I can still use that 400/5.6L. And will probaby continue to do so for some years to come. And I'm still only going to be losing about $200-$300 out of the deal if I do decide to sell it and trade in for something else.

Yeah, I'd say get the 35/1.4L, first. That's one that will definitely still be useful on both full frame and crop body. Glass depreciates a lot more slowly than electronics. And the Holy Trinity of L primes (35L, 85L, 135L) is more than capable of holding value in the long run. The best money I ever spent was on my 135L.


Canon XT (350D), EF 135mm f/2L USM. iso 800. f/2. 1/1600s. SOOC jpeg.

Holy snot, that's an amazing SOOC!!!

[inkista]

Originally Posted by LauraSAnne

I also love my 85mm, but it's not a very fast lens and that causes a lot of issues for me.

Errr.. s'what? f/1.8 "not very fast"? Wow. That's one complaint I never would have thought I'd hear about that lens. In what way is it "not fast"? Most folks would consider an f/2.8 lens to be fast. It's gonna cost you four times as much to get a single stop more on the max. aperture, and the 85L's focus-by-wire autofocus speed is much slower than the 85/1.8's.

Originally Posted by SusanH1970

Holy snot, that's an amazing SOOC!!!

That's the magic of websizes for ya. But yeah, where L glass utterly rocks is on the contrast/color you get in-camera. For me, the EF 85/1.8 USM always seems a little greyer in comparison to my 135L.

[LauraSAnne]

Originally Posted by inkista

Errr.. s'what? f/1.8 "not very fast"? Wow. That's one complaint I never would have thought I'd hear about that lens. In what way is it "not fast"? Most folks would consider an f/2.8 lens to be fast. It's gonna cost you four times as much to get a single stop more on the max. aperture, and the 85L's focus-by-wire autofocus speed is much slower than the 85/1.8's.



That's the magic of websizes for ya. But yeah, where L glass utterly rocks is on the contrast/color you get in-camera. For me, the EF 85/1.8 USM always seems a little greyer in comparison to my 135L.

I don't think my qualification for it being fast is what everyone else considers fast. What I mean is, my subject has to be super still for it to produce a crisp image...where with the 50mm I seem to have some give with that. All in all though, I love my 85mm. I get some super buttery images with it under the right conditions.

[inkista]

Originally Posted by LauraSAnne

I don't think my qualification for it being fast is what everyone else considers fast. What I mean is, my subject has to be super still for it to produce a crisp image...where with the 50mm I seem to have some give with that.

Yes, you will have a thinner DoF with the 85/1.8 than with the 50/1.8, if your'e composing/framing identically, so that's one thing to consider when you're using it--if someone's moving in and out of the DoF, then you might have issues.

The second is that there's a rule of thumb with camera shake blur: to avoid it, you need to have a shutter speed of 1/focal_length or faster, assuming you've got good handholding technique (some folks will throw in the crop factor, too). So, yeah, you've got more leeway with a 50mm lens letting you get down to 1/50s, while an 85 will want you to be at 1/85s or faster. You want to watch your shutter speed, and you may want to consider increasing your ISO. Do not fear the noise. Software can do amazing things in post and as long as you don't underexpose your photo and try to bring the exposure up in post, the noise really shouldn't be a factor until you're going over iso 800.

[WVCoalMiner]

Get the Glass!!!!! I upgraded our XS and XSi and got 2 5D's and now I need L glass LOL wish I would have gotten the L glass first as when I had rented the L glass for my XSi it was SO AWESOME!!!
Now I must wait until I can save up for some L glass and just be satisfied with our 85mm and 50mm.
BUT even those look better with the full frame LOL

[inkista]

My general rule of thumb: only start looking at upgrading bodies if the body you're considering costs less than all the lenses you want.

But I do want to repeat, L glass can be overkill. It's not a panacea for all your phototaking ills, and there are some lenses out there that don't bear the red ring, that can still beat the Ls in one way or another. (E.g., the 85/1.8 beating the 85 f/1.2L on price, portability, and autofocus speed, and being damn near the same when it comes to sharpness).

You really need to evaluate the fit of a lens for yourself, and part of that fit is going to be budget. Yes, sometimes an L is the perfect solution. Sometimes it's not. Ls cost an arm and a leg, and if you can't write them off on your taxes, maybe going for a USM gold-ringed version is going to work just as well or better.

Or you could be nuts like me and go for adapting manual focus lenses.


Canon 50D. Adapted Contax/Zeiss Planar T* 100 f/2. iso 100. f/4. 1/1000s.