Confused myself on what to buy

[Deepdivetc]

Here is my problem. I currently have a Rebel XT. I know that it is capable of taking decent pictures if everything is right and I get lucky enough to get the settings right (I know enough to mess up now. But still learning a lot) I have the kit lens, 50 F/1.8, the cheap 70-300 that is commonly available and a 580EX flash. I am ready to make a new purchase and need some guidance. I have read enough that has gotten me bouncing back and forth over what to buy. Some background of what I am wanting to do. My son plays football and obviously it is some of the harder situations to get good shots. Either I am under harsh harsh sun or under the night lights of a small school. When I try to push up the ISO then I get really bad noise (that is if I am even able to catch a good image at all with out blur using the cheap 70-300) I also like to take outdoor photos of the family and other objects. Now I know that not one purchase is going to make everything great in all instances. The other day family and I went out and took some pictures, and under the harsh sun and shade conditions I was having a really hard time what I was after with the 50mm prime. Here are the directions that I am leaning, now keep in mind that I will be getting a new camera and a new lens but not both at the same time. Could be almost a year apart. But I don't want to have to wait a year to get a decent amount of satisfaction either if that makes sense, guess I am looking for the greatest amount of improvement as a first step.

Lens or camera

If I go by route of camera first I am looking into either the 50d or 60d (was looking at the T2i but I think I have talked myself out of it) I like the addition of the video on the 60D, but it is not a deal breaker either way. Now I have read pluses and minus over both cameras such as weight, material, feel, location of controls, and speed. These that I have listed are important, but not so important that it would make me pick one over the other. What I am looking for is which will give me a better picture at lower ISO and Higher ISO. Speed of focus and quality of focus.

Now if I go with a lens first I am looking at the Cannon L-series in a 70-200 F/2.8. Now I thought that I had this all worked out until I looked up the price and see so many prices on them. I see that there are basically three that fit this qualification. I can choose IS II, IS or non IS with about $1000 between the three. Now which one should I go for between the three. I don't know the real differences and how it is going to hurt or help me in what I am trying to do. It is worth the extra money in these three to move up.

I guess my last question is should I do the lens or the camera first. Don't want to spend 1500 or 2000 on a lens and just say yeah its better but feel cheated until I get a new camera or should I get the camera now and enjoy it and learn more until about another year when I can afford the lens.

Sorry for the long post just wanted to give some background and what I am looking at.

[bearly]

what you might want to consider is getting a used 40D, because that will still be a significant upgrade from the XT and an excellent camera on its own, and then also get a better lens. between the 70-200 2.8, 2.8 IS, and 2.8 IS II, as the prices would indicated, the 2.8 IS II is the best/newest lens (just the second generation of the other 2.8 IS), but the other two are fantastic as well. the IS will just make it even easier for you to get clear shots because it stabilizes the lens allowing you to use a longer shutter speed. you might also consider the 70-200 f4 IS, because that is right around the price of the regular 2.8.

[Deepdivetc]

Originally Posted by bearly

what you might want to consider is getting a used 40D, because that will still be a significant upgrade from the XT and an excellent camera on its own, and then also get a better lens. between the 70-200 2.8, 2.8 IS, and 2.8 IS II, as the prices would indicated, the 2.8 IS II is the best/newest lens (just the second generation of the other 2.8 IS), but the other two are fantastic as well. the IS will just make it even easier for you to get clear shots because it stabilizes the lens allowing you to use a longer shutter speed. you might also consider the 70-200 f4 IS, because that is right around the price of the regular 2.8.

But will the F4 allow me to do what I need to do on those evening football games really? Forgive my ignorance I have just never shot with either and I have nowhere around here to try and rent one.

[bearly]

well the one i was talking about is the f4 with IS... i just suggested it because it's about the same price, and while it's not as fast, it does have image stabilization. just a thought.

now that i'm thinking about it though, i would probably pick the f2.8 over the f4 IS anyway

[Deepdivetc]

Originally Posted by bearly

well the one i was talking about is the f4 with IS... i just suggested it because it's about the same price, and while it's not as fast, it does have image stabilization. just a thought.

now that i'm thinking about it though, i would probably pick the f2.8 over the f4 IS anyway

Thank you for your honest opinion on the lens selection and I might keep my eye open for a D40 as you suggest. Might also see if I can feel one somewhere.

[inkista]

The 40D will give you significantly better handling than the XT, but the iso noise performance is roughly the same.

The 60D will give you a one-stop or so improvement on higher isos, but the low isos are actually going to be a little worse than what you have with the XT. You will, however, have iso settings like 3200, 6400, and 12800 available to you (although 12800 is done in-camera via the processor, not on the sensor).

Where you'll do best on eliminating noise is to make sure you're properly exposed. Underexposing and then pushing in post is the surest way to increase the noise in a shot.

Both the 40D and 60D will give you faster burst rates than you can get on the XT, and a much better autofocus system.

So, yes, upgrading the body will help, but (in my estimation) less than a faster lens.

I think going for a better lens is going to be what you want to do. And if you plan on shooting sports with it, more than shooting stationary subjects, and price is a huge consideration, I'd say see if you can find the 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS. It'll cost about the same as the f/4 IS version, but will give you another stop for the night shooting. Ideally, you probably want one of the f/2.8 IS versions, but they're expensive. Be aware, however, that the non-IS f/2.8 is likely to be a little softer than the f/4 IS wide open. It's why they revised the f/2.8 IS with a Mark II.

The reason I say that you might want to go for the non-IS version is that with sports shooting, you typically want to get the shutter speed higher any how, and you're likely to be above 1/200s anyway, and may not need stabilization. And you can always use a monopod instead.

You may also want to consider Sigma/Tamron equivalents:

Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 II EX DG APO HSM ($800) (DG = EF; HSM=USM)
Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM ($1700) (DG = EF; OS HSM = IS USM)
Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 Di ($800) (Di = EF) [VC = IS, USD = USM]

You do want to be aware that with the Canon Ls, the 70-200 f/2.8s are substantially larger and heavier than their f/4 siblings:

[Deepdivetc]

Originally Posted by inkista

The 40D will give you significantly better handling than the XT, but the iso noise performance is roughly the same.

The 60D will give you a one-stop or so improvement on higher isos, but the low isos are actually going to be a little worse than what you have with the XT. You will, however, have iso settings like 3200, 6400, and 12800 available to you (although 12800 is done in-camera via the processor, not on the sensor).

Where you'll do best on eliminating noise is to make sure you're properly exposed. Underexposing and then pushing in post is the surest way to increase the noise in a shot.

Both the 40D and 60D will give you faster burst rates than you can get on the XT, and a much better autofocus system.

So, yes, upgrading the body will help, but (in my estimation) less than a faster lens.

I think going for a better lens is going to be what you want to do. And if you plan on shooting sports with it, more than shooting stationary subjects, and price is a huge consideration, I'd say see if you can find the 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS. It'll cost about the same as the f/4 IS version, but will give you another stop for the night shooting. Ideally, you probably want one of the f/2.8 IS versions, but they're expensive. Be aware, however, that the non-IS f/2.8 is likely to be a little softer than the f/4 IS wide open. It's why they revised the f/2.8 IS with a Mark II.

The reason I say that you might want to go for the non-IS version is that with sports shooting, you typically want to get the shutter speed higher any how, and you're likely to be above 1/200s anyway, and may not need stabilization. And you can always use a monopod instead.

You may also want to consider Sigma/Tamron equivalents:

Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 II EX DG APO HSM ($800) (DG = EF; HSM=USM)
Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM ($1700) (DG = EF; OS HSM = IS USM)
Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 Di ($800) (Di = EF) [VC = IS, USD = USM]

Thank you, that is some great info.
I do have a couple of questions though. Why is it that with a 60D I would actually get worse performance at lower ISO's?

Also if I go with one of the Sigma or Tamron lenses would I be losing anything? Quality? Speed? If not which one would you recommend? The price of them look great.

I held a 50D today and I really liked the feel and liked the controls... but it sure was a heck of a lot heavier than what I was used to that is for sure.

Thanks again

[GadgetRick]

It's a tough decision on whether to go for the body or the glass first. A better body will help you shoot at higher ISOs with more success which will help. Better glass will allow you to shoot at larger apertures which will help. Quite honestly, you need both for sports.

I'd suggest picking up a used 50D. I say the 50D over the 40D for two reasons--first is the better AF. Not quite as good as the 7D but better than the 40D. Also, more resolution. For sports you'll be cropping more--especially if you're shooting outdoor sports with a 70-200 as 200mm won't be enough reach quite often depending on where you are with respect to the action. You can also pick them up at a fairly good price these days. And they are a solid camera.

As for glass I'd go for (as Inksta indicated) the 70-200 f2.8 NON-IS. For sports you want to turn off IS for various reasons. You can pick them up used for around $1,000 (check Fred Miranda). It's also an excellent lens which can be used for other things. You'll just need to watch your shutter speed since you won't have IS for those other things.

Shooting sports is quite a bit different than shooting events, etc. Not harder or anything, just different and needs different things from the gear.

[Deepdivetc]

Just wondering why no one has said go for the 60D. Is it because it is a downgrade or because it is so new? I don't mind paying the extra $400 if it is a better camera. Just curious.
Thank you

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by Deepdivetc

Just wondering why no one has said go for the 60D. Is it because it is a downgrade or because it is so new? I don't mind paying the extra $400 if it is a better camera. Just curious.
Thank you

The 60D is so new that it hasn't been reviewed yet, so nobody can give you a definite answer. It's also sort of a halfbreed: a bit more than a T2i, a bit less than a 7D. In many cases one of the other might be a better choice.