lvphotog Loc: Las Vegas, Nevada

I agree with an earlier respondent who said that if the body does what you need it to do, you'll get the best bang for the buck with a lens. For wildlife you can certainly improve over the zoom with a good 300 f/4. For low light landscape you might consider something like a top quality 80-200 f/2.8, which along with my 50 f/1.4 also serves for evening and night shooting. And you can really expand your reportoire with a fine 14mm like the Sigma 14 f/2.8, or 17-35 like the Tamron f/2.8-4.

CAM1017 Loc: Chiloquin, Oregon

You have an excellent camera body that has a lot of life in it. My suggestion would be to buy the Canon 100-400 IS lens. Forget about converters. You will not be happy with the results.

JohnM Loc: Springfield, Illinois

I have the same exact question about my Nikon D60, do those who know Nikon feel the same? Keep the camera and buy glass or upgrade the body then save to upgrade glass that goes with the new camera? Its all very confusing.

Thanks for IYHO

BruceM Loc: Swampscott, MA & Longboat Key

Hi, Flyguy:

I am a pure Canon shooter and would recommend that you look at the Canon 28-300mm L 3.5 L IS USM lens. Although heavy, it is a truly versatile lens offering near wide angle (28mm) and true long telephoto aspects (300mm). It is extremely rugged and dependable. I love mine and have used in on many, many photo adventures.
Good luck,,


Bruce M.

WildBill Loc: South West Florida

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-28-135mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Ken Rockwell considers the mid range lens "for fun" and not serious photography and has rated it accordingly. I have included this link so you can have the flip side of the coin since you are looking to sell photos in the near future.

As was said by others, L glass does not lose its value and the quality of the images is outstanding. I am sure Saichiez has had wonderful experiences with his lens because it is a good lens. A good consumer lens. Personally, if I was intending to sell photos, I would want every advantage possible and dealing with a consumer lens' soft edges, distortion, lens creep, etc. is something I would opt out of. There is a reason that lens is 440 dollars new and the L glass is a grand more. Saichiez says "I frankly didn't see the real advantage over my $200 28-135 IS kit lens, for my purposes" but your agenda is to sell professional photos in the near future. That makes a difference and so will L glass.

Before you buy, see for yourself. Rent a lens and see if it is worth an extra grand. Do side by side comparisons. You may even want to try a new camera with your existing lenses and see what difference that makes but remember you will need to replace the EF-S lens if you go FF.

melphoto60

I also have a 40D and right now I want better glass, went to creve core camera and test fired the following lenses:
sigmas 17-50 f2.8 (ef-s) and 70-200 f2.8 then canons 100-400 f4.5-5.6, would love to have them all. A bit of subject, sorry.

As answer to your question, are you in the future going to up grade to FF, if so dont buy anymore af-s lenses. I would buy a wide angle zoom something in the 12-24 range on a FF would balance out what you have now. I find that the 28-135 isnt wide enough for me on my 40D I dont own this lens but have test fired it, I have the 17-85 kit

melphoto60

better glass = better? photos
go to froknowsphoto web site he is a nikon shooter and always touts better glass, restrictions on your D60 is it has no built in motor, so you need to keep that in mind when buying your glass. Also when you upgrade camera there is no law that says you cant keep what you have and buy another, that way you have 2 bodies each with a lens on it

picturedude Loc: Yosemite natl. park, Ca.

I think your best option would be send me your money and I'll buy a new camera for me. (Hey, you asked for something you haven't thought of.) But on a more serious note, I would go for glass.

flathead27ford Loc: Colorado, North of Greeley

[quote=picturedude]


Now that is funny. Actually made me laugh out loud. I think with all these great recommendations from everyone, I will keep my 40d for now. I will buy a couple of L lenses to cover the width of mm's. I'll upgrade to a FF later in life.

That brings me to another question with the different suggested lenses. What are everyone's opinion on getting a Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM and the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM vs getting the EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM and a 2x converter? You all have been GREAT! Thanks!

bruce Loc: Vancouver, Wa

It's always amazing what I learn on this site. This was the very question I have been struggling with. I have a 50D and I was wondering whether to upgrade or go with better lenses. So happy I got my question answered. Thank you.

twowindsbear

Improve the skills you have, learn how to make spectacular photos with the equipment you have now.

JohnM Loc: Springfield, Illinois

thats easy for you to say

melphoto60

[quote=flathead27ford]

ok lets see abt same price range for the 24-105 and 100-400 over the 28-300. on the 24-105 f4 thru out the zoom range, all are IS USM lenses, I would not buy the 2X extender as you lose 2x light, but would go with the 1.4 if you really need it remember the 40D has a 1.6 crop factor of point of view...with the various aptures on the 100-400 or 28-300, and on my 70-300 tamron f4-5.6I find I use the 5.6 when shooting so I would most likely be at 5.6 on both of these lenses, cant find falt other than over lap buying the 24-105 when you already have the 28-135 big difference would be the f4 factor, and you already know abt 24/28 not being wide enough for me. Besides you already cover the 28-300 range in lenses you have now so I would choose the 100-400 as one of my lenses and go with an 85 f1.4 sigma or 85 f1.8 canon (lesser priced than sigma)...just my 2c worth

philo Loc: philo, ca

i use my 24-105 95% of the time and my 100-400 about 1% pf the time. Does that answer your question.[quote=flathead27ford]

Cappy Loc: Wildwood, NJ