Advice for developing my photo quiver

[2nd mate]

After grabbing a T2i a couple years ago and shooting with a 50mm 1.8 and a crap 10-20 wide angle I finally purchased a 24-105 F4L and what a difference it has made. Shooting this lens for just 6 months of fishing and outdoor shots I am ready to move forward with gear but I am very torn on which way to go with the next $600-$1200 in gear. I plan to make 2 purchases over the next year (a lens and a body) and I am soliciting advice as to what your priorities if you were in my shoes??? I will be shooting outdoor. Skiing, fishing, hiking, dogs, kids sports and that kind of stuff

Body: I will buy used. Looking at 70D, 7D or just going with a 6D. I am constantly watching Cragslist to see what they are going for and comparing this to the local and big on line used photo shops. I have compared them all to each other for my needs but there are just so many options I don't know where to go. I am very much still a novice. I see one photographer I know getting great shots with a 7D but I still kind of want to go full frame....

Lens: 70-200 F4 seems like what I should grab next for sports and fishing needs. I just really want to reach out more. A 17-40 F4 would be the other direction I would consider. It is odd that I see very few of them used for sale.

My gut says grab a 6d first. I really want a body that can hold up to the elements better than my T2i and I know all the bodies I am looking at will do this. I don't see me missing the flash with how I shoot. The step up on FPS from the T2i to any of the bodies I am looking at will be big for sports but is this enough of a factor to keep me shooting a crop body?

Gut says next go after the 70-200. There are some shots at work i really want to get that I need that zoom for but can I be patient and wait until I get into a FF or better crop sensor/processor to really step up these shots?

Another possible route would be grab a M50 with an EF adapter.

Any and all advice is greatly appreciated.

[smmokan]

My initial thoughts:

- If you want to go full-frame, then get the 6D and either a 70-200 or the new 70-300 IS v2. Depending on your needs, if you want the constant f/4, then get the 70-200. You can get a 6D for around $650 "lightly used", which is a killer deal.
- If you don't have an obvious need for full-frame, then get either the M50 or the 80D. Don't bother with the 7D or the 70D. That said, if you do this then I'd recommend selling your 24-105 f/4 and getting something with a more useful focal range for the crop sensor, like the 18-135 STM or the EF-M 18-150 (you could use the 24-105, but it would negate the size advantage of the smaller body). If you go this route, then I'd also pick up a longer zoom as mentioned above, depending on your needs. Grab the EF-M adapter for the M50 (or don't, if you get the 80D) to go along with the zoom. I would also recommend getting the EF-M 11-22 if you go mirrorless, as it's one of the sharpest ultra-wide lenses out there. And it's tiny.

I personally can't think of a huge reason to go with the 80D over the M50, unless you just like the feel of a DSLR. The 80D has slightly better AF, but the M50 has more FPS and touch-screen AF selector, which is a game-changer. The image quality with good lenses is right up there with anything else on the market.

I've shot my M50 with the 24-70 f/4 IS, 70-200 f/4 IS, 50mm 1.4, and 11-22 and the images it produces are freakin' outstanding. Being able to use the adapter without losing quality or functionality turns the camera into a pretty flexible and useful little tool.

[Supermoon]

I don't know much about Canon stuff, but have some general thoughts.

What is causing you to miss shots right now? Is it that you don't have the appropriate focal length? Is it that you are missing focus or don't have enough FPS? Are you shooting in low light and the images are too noisy to be useable? Most of the gains you'll see are from better glass unless you need better autofocus or better low-light performance.

How far are you carrying your gear to get your shots? I just sold a bunch of my heaviest stuff to get a lighter mirrorless kit because saving two pounds of pack weight means my camera is going to go with me more often.

IMO full frame isn't necessary for action shots. The crop factor usually helps with that little extra reach, and crop lenses are so much cheaper and lighter. If you want to eventually do professional portraits or landscape, then that's a different question.

[2nd mate]

Thank you for some great responses. The info you gents provided answered so many questions I didn't even ask. I am just about to get off the computer but I am excited about some of the suggestions. I will put together my feelings when I get back on watch(at anchor) tomorrow. Thank you very much !!!

[smmokan]

How far are you carrying your gear to get your shots? I just sold a bunch of my heaviest stuff to get a lighter mirrorless kit because saving two pounds of pack weight means my camera is going to go with me more often.

Agree 100%. With the quality mirrorless options out there these days, I'll always have one. It makes things SO much easier to carry and have with me. I've got both an M50 and a 6D right now, and the size and weight difference is significant.

[east or bust]

good thread.

i’m in the same boat right now with a T3i. have the ranges covered well with 3 cheapish lenses but want to step up the quality.

i was very close to pulling the trigger on a 70-200 f/4L but i think saving for the 2.8 is a better decision, especially for shooting sports.

[From_the_NEK]

good thread.

i’m in the same boat right now with a T3i. have the ranges covered well with 3 cheapish lenses but want to step up the quality.

i was very close to pulling the trigger on a 70-200 f/4L but i think saving for the 2.8 is a better decision, especially for shooting sports.

Be warned, that 2.8 is heavy. I gave myself tennis elbow using it this fall.

[2nd mate]

I do not have an obvious need for FF. This leads me to the M50. My only real concern is the lack weather sealing.
Does a 2lb weight diff offset the lack of weather sealing on the M50 vs the 80D?

I am traveling by road bike 20-30 miles to get to the flats where I fish. This is pretty significant since my kit can get rather heavy. A couple hundred days at this and I have more or less got used to it.

When I am unable to get a shot it is usually because what I want is too far away and it is physically impossible to get close enough to to the subject. If I add a 70-200 I should be able to get more shots , of course understanding there will always be limitations with focal length. Low light shooting is not an issue for me. I am looking to move up in FPS.

[smmokan]

I do not have an obvious need for FF. This leads me to the M50. My only real concern is the lack weather sealing.
Does a 2lb weight diff offset the lack of weather sealing on the M50 vs the 80D?

I am traveling by road bike 20-30 miles to get to the flats where I fish. This is pretty significant since my kit can get rather heavy. A couple hundred days at this and I have more or less got used to it.

When I am unable to get a shot it is usually because what I want is too far away and it is physically impossible to get close enough to to the subject. If I add a 70-200 I should be able to get more shots , of course understanding there will always be limitations with focal length. Low light shooting is not an issue for me. I am looking to move up in FPS.

My understanding is that if the lens itself isn't weather sealed too, then the body doesn't matter all that much. When it comes to Canon lenses, only the "L" lenses are weather sealed. FWIW, I've had my Canon M50 (and M5) out in lots of rain, and usually when it starts raining I just grab the backpack rain cover and wrap my camera in it. I've never had a problem doing it that way.

A slight aside... don't sleep on the Canon 55-250mm STM lens for the M50. It's cheap and considered a "budget" lens, but it's as sharp as anything I've shot with. Since you're not concerned with low light, the constant F/4 on the 70-200 isn't a real selling point for you. Here are a few shots I got with the M5 & 55-250 over the summer, you can judge for yourself.










And one MTB shot with the 55-250:

[east or bust]

Be warned, that 2.8 is heavy. I gave myself tennis elbow using it this fall.

truth, i’ve heard it’s a beast!

I am traveling by road bike 20-30 miles to get to the flats where I fish. This is pretty significant since my kit can get rather heavy. A couple hundred days at this and I have more or less got used to it.

reading comprehension fail on my part. went back and saw you wrote you are riding long distances to shooting locations, so weight undoubtedly matters.

When I am unable to get a shot it is usually because what I want is too far away and it is physically impossible to get close enough to to the subject. If I add a 70-200 I should be able to get more shots , of course understanding there will always be limitations with focal length. Low light shooting is not an issue for me. I am looking to move up in FPS.

far away, good light, you could get the f/4 and an extender for a couple hundo less than the 2.8



anyone else use Adorama for used gear? their prices seem pretty fair and i like that they have a condition rating system

[MakersTeleMark]

KEH is the gold standard for used gear, but I've ordered supplies and parts from Adorama with good success.

[smmokan]

KEH is solid, and I believe they include a 6-mo warranty on their lenses. I almost always look on Fred Miranda first for used gear, though.


Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums

[Supermoon]

A slight aside... don't sleep on the Canon 55-250mm STM lens for the M50. It's cheap and considered a "budget" lens, but it's as sharp as anything I've shot with. Since you're not concerned with low light, the constant F/4 on the 70-200 isn't a real selling point for you. Here are a few shots I got with the M5 & 55-250 over the summer, you can judge for yourself.

On a crop body that’s almost 400mm equivalent. That should solve your reach issues.

[Tye 1on]

A slight aside... don't sleep on the Canon 55-250mm STM lens for the M50. It's cheap and considered a "budget" lens, but it's as sharp as anything I've shot with. Since you're not concerned with low light, the constant F/4 on the 70-200 isn't a real selling point for you. Here are a few shots I got with the M5 & 55-250 over the summer, you can judge for yourself.]

x2 on that lens. I'm a hack who only gets decent shots thanks to the equipment, and on a recent 18-day trip in the Yucatan I took that lens instead of the old 'magic drain pipe' 80-200 f2.8 as it's a quarter the weight. I got a few long range wildlife shots that were amazingly sharp.

Edit: On the Canon refurb site for $110 link

[2nd mate]

So now the big question is do I go for the EOS RP instead of the M50? The EF to EOS-R adapter is $100, but still no weather sealing for the EOS RP.

[smmokan]

It all comes down to whether you want FF or not. The RP has a better sensor for IQ and low-light images, and likely a little bit better with AF speed. The M50 shoots much faster and will be a more compact system with the EF-M lens options.

Personally, I think *in good light* the M50 will produce images on par with the RP- see above for some examples.