Reading mode: Light Dark

Upgrade camera or lenses? (Canon EOS 2000d)

Go to last post
K

Koensol

Active member
Messages
53
Reaction score
21
Hello, my wife currently has a canon eos 2000d with the 18-55 kitlens, which was advised to her as a good starter setup. Right now she feels shes ready for an upgrade. Fyi, shes mostly interested in stills (travel, city, landscapes, animals), not video. So at first I went and researched extensively for lenses with a good quality/price ratio, and ended up on the Canon EFS 15-85 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM (or Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4, Sigma 17-50 f/2.8, or Canon EFS 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM), and the Canon EFS 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS STM. I feel with these 2 types of lenses, she wouldn't need anything else. And they are offered quite cheap on the used market.

On the other hand, there is the option to upgrade camera body. I feel like staying in DSLR isn't the move, so I narrowed it down to the Canon EOS R10, which is light and compact (we like to go on hikes), and offers a significant upgrade at an acceptable price. And lets say she'd upgrade lenses first, she could use those on the r10 with the adapter.

Now my question is, coming from the 2000d, which route would be more advised to give her a boost in overall IQ, while not wasting too much money in the long term?

Thanks in advance for any input.
 
Last edited:
You're Rebel T7 is a decent camera. I'm long over the full frame thing, though I love mine. But after I bought it I also bought the 7D mk 2 used for the crop factor and to extend the reach of my Sigma 150 - 600 lens. This camera came out in 2014 and I just bought it about a year and a half ago.

I have owned two Rebels in my past and I think they are the perfect camera to learn on and use extensively until you have narrowed down exactly where you are going in photography.

The "Holy Trinity" of lenses for Canon are either the f2.8 of f4 versions of 16 - 35mm, 24 - 105 (or 24 - 70) and 70 - 200mm lenses. I would recommend you head in that direction. I bought the f4 versions not to save money, money wasn't an issue at the time of purchase of these lenses for me. I preferred the smaller footprint and lighter weight of the f4 versions.

I would also strongly suggest the used market, many of us don't buy new lenses anymore. KEH is an excellent retailer for used goods, pro's love it and it has been around since Jesus was in diapers.
 
Koensol said:
Hello, my wife currently has a canon eos 2000d with the 18-55 kitlens, which was advised to her as a good starter setup. Right now she feels shes ready for an upgrade. Fyi, shes mostly interested in stills (travel, city, landscapes, animals), not video. So at first I went and researched extensively for lenses with a good quality/price ratio, and ended up on the Canon EFS 15-85 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM (or Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4, Sigma 17-50 f/2.8, or Canon EFS 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM), and the Canon EFS 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS STM. I feel with these 2 types of lenses, she wouldn't need anything else. And they are offered quite cheap on the used market.

On the other hand, there is the option to upgrade camera body. I feel like staying in DSLR isn't the move, so I narrowed it down to the Canon EOS R10, which is light and compact (we like to go on hikes), and offers a significant upgrade at an acceptable price. And lets say she'd upgrade lenses first, she could use those on the r10 with the adapter.

Now my question is, coming from the 2000d, which route would be more advised to give her a boost in overall IQ, while not wasting too much money in the long term?

Thanks in advance for any input.
Click to expand...
I'm not going to argue against moving from DSLR to mirrorless. I will however impress upon the fact that image quality will depend more on the lens than the camera body; your 2000D is a good camera capable of taking great photos but is almost definitely limited by the kit lens.

Are you set on sticking with Canon? The R10 is OK, but it lacks in-body image stabilization. The R7 would be the Canon upgrade to the R10, but it's bulkier and perhaps a bit more expensive than you want to go.

The Nikon Z50 II is a decent camera with great autofocus and some pro features you might not expect in a camera that inexpensive. A couple weeks ago I might not have recommended it, but the new 16-50mm f2.8 lens they just released changes that because it has stabilization.

With Sony I'd recommend looking at the a6500 or (preferably) the a6600. The a6700 is amazing, but it's more of a "hybrid" camera with some video features you might not want but would be paying extra for. The a6500 and a6600 have IBIS, and thus work well with non-stabilized lenses like the inexpensive and small Sigma 18-50mm f2.8. Alternatively there's the a6400, which isn't stabilized, paired with the Tamron 17-70mm f2.8 (which is). The main benefits with Sony are the compact bodies and the huge amount of 3rd party lenses available. However the "rangefinder" body style with the smallish side-mounted viewfinder isn't for everybody.

There's Fuji options, but I don't know the cameras well enough to recommend any.
 
I pretty much agree with rsn above. The image quality provided by the 2000D/T7 is extremely similar to most current APS-C cameras including the R10. Replacing the entry level lens with a current entry level lens will not significantly improve images either. Spending the money to upgrade for upgrades sake will not actually provide any noticeable image quality improvements.

Building a used DSLR system will be effective for another ten to twenty years. In this short term I would upgrade the lens first with one or two "L" lenses, or one or two prime lenses. Your wife probably knows what primes may be most effective for the subjects that she likes to shoot.

The only significant camera upgrades would be the 90D or the R7 or moving to full frame with an expensive R5. Fuji has two high resolution APS-C bodies, but I'd stick with Canon for the extensive lens possibilities. If switching to full frame then there are equivalents from Sony and Nikon.

If upgrading to Canon RF the endless supply of used EF lenses can be used seamlessly with an adapter, until RF lenses can be added in.
 
Alright, thanks guys. The main thing I learned here is that better lenses will offer more improvement over upgrading this specific camera body. So step one will be to upgrade those.

Though L grade lenses, however good they may be, are a bit too expensive for her tastes at this point. Even used. They are also typically more bulky/heavy than most of the designated APS-C lenses, which I know will end up being a big downside for her while hiking, as she is quite small and not very physicaly strong. For that reason alone I think it's best to keep it to just 2 lenses. She's still learning a lot of the basics of photography, but since she made the decision that she likes photography as a hobby and wants keep doing it, she now wants to get a decent first upgrade to get a bit sharper photos and more flexible reach than what the basic kit lens offers. From what I saw and read online, all the lenses that I named in the OP will already offer a boost in quality (sharpness, aberation control, etc) compared to the 18-55 kitlens, while being significantly lighter and more compact than L lenses, and a lot cheaper.

As far as camera bodies go, I'm glad to read the T7 is still considered a good camera. I wondered if the newer sensors on the R10/7 would improve the IQ more than newer lenses (especially dynamic range), but I understand this isn't the case. Since lenses are the way to go, it will make sense to stay with canon for any future updates, so she won't have to buy new ones after switching to another brand.
 
Last edited:
The new sensors will improve the dynamic range significantly. Older Canon sensors are not that good. It only matters if you are shooting a high DR scene.

Nevertheless, I’d say a lens upgrade (used) is a good first step.

If upgrading to a new mount, I’d keep an open mind on which system. The availability and prices of lenses that fit your uses would be my priority. Feeling happy with user interface and body design matters too. You know how Canon design bodies, but out there you have MFT, Fuji X and APSC from the big 3.

Here is my OM5 and the Pro 12-45/4 that came with it.



872691e5f0f94a0e9036a90f959d7fd2.jpg

More DR than the T7 at base ISO but only 20Mpix. I’ve shot 16, 20, 42 and 61Mpix, so I know what the effect of resolution is on IQ. A lot of the time 20Mpix is enough and the lens matters more.

MFT has a lot of smaller lenses, of course that reduces light gathering and subject isolation but that is often acceptable. You can use primes when a bit more is needed.

Andrew

--
Infinite are the arguments of mages. Truth is a jewel with many facets. Ursula K LeGuin
Please feel free to edit any images that I post
 
The EF 18-55mm lens that would have come with your camera isn't a bad lens although you might have a non-IS version. If you do, then getting an IS lens (or moving to a body with IBIS) might improve your wife's photography somewhat when shooting in low light.

If your wife wants a lighter setup for hiking and and more flexible reach, then you are looking at the wrong lenses. The EF 17-55mm f/2.8 L is an excellent lens for serious photographers, but it offers only a marginal improvement in range at the wide end and non at all at the longer end. The Sigma 17-70mm is a little better and the EF 15-85mm is better still, especially at the wide end. Of the three, the 15-85mm is the lens that I would get for hiking and travel. However, there are other alternatives that are even better, for example the Canon EF 18-135mm or the Sigma 18-200mm or one of the Tamron super zooms.

To keep size and weight down, you should at least consider mirrorless options like the Canon R10 with the Canon RF-S 18-150mm lens.

--
Chris R
 
Last edited:
Chris R-UK said:
The EF 18-55mm lens that would have come with your camera isn't a bad lens although you might have a non-IS version. If you do, then getting an IS lens (or moving to a body with IBIS) might improve your wife's photography somewhat when shooting in low light.

If your wife wants a lighter setup for hiking and and more flexible reach, then you are looking at the wrong lenses. The EF 17-55mm f/2.8 L is an excellent lens for serious photographers, but it offers only a marginal improvement in range at the wide end and non at all at the longer end. The Sigma 17-70mm is a little better and the EF 15-85mm is better still, especially at the wide end. Of the three, the 15-85mm is the lens that I would get for hiking and travel. However, there are other alternatives that are even better, for example the Canon EF 18-135mm or the Sigma 18-200mm or one of the Tamron super zooms.

To keep size and weight down, you should at least consider mirrorless options like the Canon R10 with the Canon RF-S 18-150mm lens.
Click to expand...
 
Koensol said:
Chris R-UK said:
The EF 18-55mm lens that would have come with your camera isn't a bad lens although you might have a non-IS version. If you do, then getting an IS lens (or moving to a body with IBIS) might improve your wife's photography somewhat when shooting in low light.

If your wife wants a lighter setup for hiking and and more flexible reach, then you are looking at the wrong lenses. The EF 17-55mm f/2.8 L is an excellent lens for serious photographers, but it offers only a marginal improvement in range at the wide end and non at all at the longer end. The Sigma 17-70mm is a little better and the EF 15-85mm is better still, especially at the wide end. Of the three, the 15-85mm is the lens that I would get for hiking and travel. However, there are other alternatives that are even better, for example the Canon EF 18-135mm or the Sigma 18-200mm or one of the Tamron super zooms.

To keep size and weight down, you should at least consider mirrorless options like the Canon R10 with the Canon RF-S 18-150mm lens.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the input! And yea after alot of thinking we mainly had eyes on the 15-85 as the main 'general purpose' lens. I've read many good things about it and especially the wide end will come in useful when doing city trips, and making landscape photos. I feel like 85 + some minor cropping will be sufficient range for most things. Then the 55-250 IS STM as a 2nd lens for wildlife/distant subjects for when that's needed. This one also is quite light and compact which is ideal as a secondary lens and it's supposedly one of the better EF-S lenses. I feel like the 18-200 will have too much overlap with the 55-250, while lacking that bit of extra range that you would want for subjects like wildlife. Both of these lenses are also around 200 euros on the used market, which is a very good price imo.
Click to expand...
250mm is a bit short for wildlife. If you get, say, an 18-135mm then that will cover most things except wildlife. For wildlife, if your wife is serious, then look at a used Canon Sigma 100-400mm, although they are heavier.
 
Canon 15-85 is a great lens and honestly, I wouldn't look further. Buy it and see what your wife then misses. The 15-85 is already a bit heavier than the kit lens, and a tele lens will be more heavy still (she might not like that?). Keep the camera, upgrade the lens.
 
Chris R-UK said:
Koensol said:
Chris R-UK said:
The EF 18-55mm lens that would have come with your camera isn't a bad lens although you might have a non-IS version. If you do, then getting an IS lens (or moving to a body with IBIS) might improve your wife's photography somewhat when shooting in low light.

If your wife wants a lighter setup for hiking and and more flexible reach, then you are looking at the wrong lenses. The EF 17-55mm f/2.8 L is an excellent lens for serious photographers, but it offers only a marginal improvement in range at the wide end and non at all at the longer end. The Sigma 17-70mm is a little better and the EF 15-85mm is better still, especially at the wide end. Of the three, the 15-85mm is the lens that I would get for hiking and travel. However, there are other alternatives that are even better, for example the Canon EF 18-135mm or the Sigma 18-200mm or one of the Tamron super zooms.

To keep size and weight down, you should at least consider mirrorless options like the Canon R10 with the Canon RF-S 18-150mm lens.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the input! And yea after alot of thinking we mainly had eyes on the 15-85 as the main 'general purpose' lens. I've read many good things about it and especially the wide end will come in useful when doing city trips, and making landscape photos. I feel like 85 + some minor cropping will be sufficient range for most things. Then the 55-250 IS STM as a 2nd lens for wildlife/distant subjects for when that's needed. This one also is quite light and compact which is ideal as a secondary lens and it's supposedly one of the better EF-S lenses. I feel like the 18-200 will have too much overlap with the 55-250, while lacking that bit of extra range that you would want for subjects like wildlife. Both of these lenses are also around 200 euros on the used market, which is a very good price imo.
Click to expand...
250mm is a bit short for wildlife. If you get, say, an 18-135mm then that will cover most things except wildlife. For wildlife, if your wife is serious, then look at a used Canon Sigma 100-400mm, although they are heavier.
Click to expand...
Remember it's a crop sensor lens, so it's a 400mm FFE zoom, which honestly is enough for her. She just wants a portable option to bring when we go hiking, or safari/zoo and imo this should work fine for that. I have the Sony RX10IV which goes to 600mm ffe, and it's not even that big of a difference, those last 200mm. For casual use anyway. A small crop and you're at the same focal length, which should be doable with 24mp. Yes, the 100-400 is better, but as you said for her usecase way too heavy and big. I did think about 18-135, but for city trips I think the 15mm wide end is more useful than a bit of extra zoom, when you can bring the light and compact 55-250 as a secondary or just crop a bit.
 
Last edited:
RubenJ said:
Canon 15-85 is a great lens and honestly, I wouldn't look further. Buy it and see what your wife then misses. The 15-85 is already a bit heavier than the kit lens, and a tele lens will be more heavy still (she might not like that?). Keep the camera, upgrade the lens.
Click to expand...
 
I am well aware that your wife uses a crop sensor camera. I used Canon APS-C DSLRs for 10 years. Many APS-C wildlife photographers now use 150-600mm lenses but they are certainly too heavy for your wife.
 
Chris R-UK said:
I am well aware that your wife uses a crop sensor camera. I used Canon APS-C DSLRs for 10 years. Many APS-C wildlife photographers now use 150-600mm lenses but they are certainly too heavy for your wife.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

IHMacy
My Sony/Canon dilemma
Replies
11
Views
322
Nusratty
N
Z
16+28-200 -> sony/canon + UWA (tamron 16-30, 17-50, sony 16-35, canon 14-35, 16-28)
Replies
10
Views
50
zalmanium
Z
SkinnyNinja
Canon EOS 250D Upgrade Suggestions
Replies
2
Views
3
beagle1
B
M
90D vs R10, upgrading from 1300D
2
Replies
26
Views
73
beagle1
B
R
Is the Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 still worth getting?
Replies
5
Views
60
beagle1
B

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top