I hope that this is the right place for this question.

I would like to know, what gear update would make sense for me. At the moment I have the following equipment:
Canon EOS 600D
Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Lens
Canon 70-200mm f/4-5.6 IS Lens
Rokinon 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye Lens
Intervalometer

So I was wondering, if it would make more sense to upgrade the camera (to a full frame camera) or just buy a lens with a bigger aperture (f/1.8 for example). Would it make a big difference to use a L lens on my 600D? Or use a full frame camera and one of my lenses? I am not planning to buy something right away, it is more curiosity. I would appreciate every answer.
Edit: And what would make more sense for night sky shots?

If you can't stretch to the EF14mm f2.8L (I sure cant) it seems a Samyang 14mm f2.8 is an option.

Reviews are good, distortion can be corrected and the bang for buck is fantastic. I have one arriving Monday!

The "L" lenses make a big difference regardless of what body they are on.
When you are shooting full manual a lot of the extra features you are paying for on some models makes no difference (focus features etc).
I definitely love full frame myself, but ultimately I treat bodies as disposable, lenses will last a lifetime if treated well.

Thanks for the answers.

So lets say I would be willing to spend about $1000 for a good lens (L glas). This would give me an immense boost in sharpness and general image quality right? Also later it would be possible to upgrade to (for example) a 5D Mark II, to upgrade to a good full frame camera. That sounds good, but...

... I would still have a lot of noise, when using a high ISO and/or long exposure times.

I think my problem is, that I want a whole upgrade (lens and body), while I have to start with just one thing. Viewing it like that, a lens would make more sense, right? Can someone recommend a good wide angle lens, that is about $1000 (and has L glas)? If my estimated price is not realistic, just correct me.

Ah, maybe I should mention, that my plan is to do some star pictures. Also I had the idea, that someone maybe has a picture of a "cheaper" DSLR (like the Canon EOS 600D in my case), taken with a L glas lens, to give me an idea of the quality difference?

I really appreciate any help!

The 600D has the same image quality as the 60D or 7D (and probably the 650D too). Those other cameras have many other benefits, but image quality is not one of them.

What focal length do you want to shoot at? It is no use buying an L lens if it has a focal length that is different from what you need. Currently you do not have any rectilinear lens wider than 18mm, and 18mm is only mildly wide on APS-C. I'd look at adding something wider than 18mm.

Next, what aperture do you want to shoot at? If f8 is where you shoot, then you will not see much improvement with an L lens over what you already have (at those focal lengths). But you can't pretend an f5.6 lens is an f1.4 lens - there is no substitute for actually having an f1.4 lens when you need one. Many (but not all) wide aperture Canon lenses are L lenses.

The extra price of L lenses covers a lot more than just image quality. It also goes into handling, dust-and-water resistance and other aspects that cost money but don't improve image quality. So don't assume that an L lens is going to deliver visibly better image quality than a non-L lens. For example, going from the 50mm f1.8 to the 50mm f1.4 and then the 50mm f1.2L does not result in better image quality - but it does make the price jump by about 20x. And the EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 is sharper than any L zoom lens over that range on an APS-C camera. It even costs more than the EF 17-40mm f4L lens.

Shooting star trails benefits from a wide, fast lens and a camera with a low-noise, sensitive sensor. An f2.8 lens on a 5d Mk II or III is ideal, but f3.5 on a 600D is not really that far behind, and thousands of dollars less. The EF-S 10-22mm f3.5-4.5 is an excellent lens, and wider than any rectilinear L lens from Canon. The EF 14mm f2.8L is a wonderful ultra-wide on full-frame, but not nearly so wonderful on APS-C. As there are no other L-series Canon rectilinear lenses wider than 16mm to choose from, restricting yourself to L-only rather limits your choices.

And finally, remember that camera bodies will become noticeably out-of-date in around 3 years, but lenses will last around 20 years (or more). So an investment in a good lens will last a lot longer than an investment in a good body.

Hi Alteregoandy,

I am in the very same boat as you. The next investment for me will be a really good lens like yourself. I recently had use of an 70 - 200 and its something I definitely need. I really found it great to get those close ups.

My kit is similar
600D
Kit lens
50m f1.4
Tokina 11-16mm

Even with the crop factor I absolutely love the Tokina 11-16mm, definitely my favorite lens that ive used. Its slow to build up but i can definitely see that investing in the good glass is.....well, an investment

Thank you, Torkn, this is exactly the kind of answer, I wanted.

So you say, that a L lens does not have to have a better image quality, but is just a product of higher quality in general? I thought L lens = better image quality (because of special glas or something..?!).

Well, I have my 8mm f/3.5 fisheye, which provides a pretty wide angle. I would like to buy a wide angle lens, that still works on my crop size sensor. I don´t know which focal length that would be, but 18mm is not really far (like you said) and 8mm is a bit too far sometimes (but better than 18mm mostly).

Also I´m interested in night photography lately, so I would like to have a big aperture on the lens. Right now the biggest I have is f/3.5. Since the 600D causes quite heavy noise at ISO 6400/3200, I figured that a f/1.x lens could improve my whole night shots.

I want to try to achieve some good night sky shots (like all those impressive milky way shots out there). I think a faster lens would be one step in the right direction?

@Jeeves: The 11-16mm Tokina lens really looks good. Can you notice a big difference between f/3.5 and f/2.8 when doing long time exposure shots?

Edit: Oh yeah, there is this Rokinon 24mm F/1.4 lens, but I guess 24mm are just too much (considering the x1,6 zoom factor). Can someone recommend a lens like this? But I am thinking about a lens around 12mm.

Personally I would never buy a crop sensor lens, if you upgrade to a full-fame camera the lens is pretty much useless.
I am consistently seeing much crisper and sharper images from my L lenses than any of the others I use, to the point that the only non-L glass I ever shoot with now is my sigma 8mm unless I have multiple cameras in use and run out of other options. I have quite a few lenses that had great reviews that now just mostly gather dust.
Even at HD video res the difference is noticeable.
If you are going to spend big $ on lenses, try them out first if you are on a limited budget to make sure you know what you are getting into. If you are not doing any low-light work you can get away with cheaper lenses sometimes, but there are often huge variations in quality, even from one lens to the next of the same model.

I wasn´t planing to buy a crop sensor size lens. My idea was more to buy a lens that will work on crop and full size cameras.

So L lenses do make a difference?! Could you give me an example for a wide angle L lens, with a big aperture (that seems to be what I want, when I do star pictures)? Since you have some experience, it´s better to hear advice instead of aimlessly scanning the internet, I think.

For a full-frame camera, I believe that the Canon EF 24mm f/1.4 L II USM is one of the best choices out there. For a crop-frame camera, if you insist on a Canon L lens, then you might look at the Canon EF 14mm f/2.8 L II USM. Another possibility is the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L II USM.

That said, I know that the Tokina 11-16 gets an awful lot of accolades from quite a few owners. I don't think I've ever seen anybody report being unhappy with it.

I don´t insist to take a L lens, I was jst interested in what they could do to improve my image quality. But considering the price of some of them, I noticed, that they´re just out of my budget :/

The Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 seems to be a good choice in this case. Like you said, the owners (at least on amazon, lol) seem to be satisfied with it. Also 11-16mm is an interesting range, since I am stuck on either 8mm or 18mm+ right now. The aperture won´t be much of a difference, though, right (3.5 vs 2.8)?

If I would buy this lens, I could later upgrade my camera body, which would result in a better image quality as well, won´t it? (Assuming, I will upgrade to a full frame camera)

Thank you, for your help!

The only bad thing about the Tokina is the flare, mine flares A LOT (and not in a good way). I've read online some people is having the same issue.

The 24l1.4 is probably the best for night. It is still reasonable on a crop body, but a little restrictive for big sky shots. The 16-35l is great on either body, but not quite as fast, still not bad though.

The 24mm f/1.4L lens really looks good. My only problem is the price ($1800). If I would take the 11-16mm f/2.8 Tokina lens instead, I wouldn´t get the same result at all, but it´s still a good wide angle lens, eh?

The problem with the flare occurs at all lenses or just at certain ones?

Admittedly, I have noticed strong flare with my copy of the Tokina 11-16mm lens, but only when shooting into the sun! I usually use it for starfield / Milky Way timelapses, where this is not an issue.

I will add that I did get an extreme and very annoying flare one night when a bright, strong floodlight illuminated the lens unexpectedly from the side -- almost 90 degrees from the direction the lens was pointed, but enough to get past the lens hood.

The lesson I've learned is to keep bright light sources from striking my Tokina directly. As long as I follow this rule, I'm a happy camper.

I totally get the concept of spending on lenses which never wear out but.....
After hearing Tom Lowe rave on about the Arri 16mm F1.4? master prime lens and how some of his more epic shots would have been impossible without the large aperture and wide angle view of the $30,000 lens on his 5D2 camera, I got to thinking.
Somehow I got the idea that a 5D3, with two more F-stops of sensitivity might make my Russian Zentar 16mm F2.8 behave similar to how the faster Arri lens did on the 5D2 with its lower sensitivity. Is there anything to this, or am I expecting too much?

So I read some reviews about the Tokina 11-16mm lens, which really seem promising. It seems to be a really sharp lens, a bit faster than f/3.5 and a good overall performance. I think I will buy it soon. Thank you all for the help

I'll be going home to where im from this week end and if the clouds stay away ill get you some nightlapse test(its very cloudy the last few weeks though)

That would be nice, thank you! I´m having clouds over since thre weeks, too.

Hi,

I went home this week end but unfortunately it didn’t stop raining the whole time i was there.
The very first shot in this video uses the lens https://vimeo.com/43064294

I love the lens and for the price I think it definitely well worth it. Sorry didn’t get you a nightlapse with it.

Hey everybody,

I purchased the lens and got a first nice result. So far I am really satisfied with the lens. Finally I feel well prepared for low light work


http://500px.com/photo/10202573