Which gear to pickup with a new 40D user upgrading from a XTi?

[dvdnamja]

Hey guys, I have a couple of questions that I'm hoping that you can answer. I was an original user of the 300D, then moved up to the 400D when the 300D died. The 400D was a fantastic camera for me but I recently gave that to my sister who's expecting her first child next month. I know that your first child only comes around once so I wanted her to have a good camera to capture all the moments she needs. But that has left me with no SLR. I did see the new XSi but I'm a little more impressed with the 40D due to the slighter better build. I do have a couple of SD cards that would be better for the XSi but I can always pick up a CF-SD adapter. I only used the kit lens that came with the XTi but I want to move onto better glass.

My primary interests will be photographing family members (need to be a good uncle), structures such as buildings, bridges, and stadiums (I'm fascinated by architecture sometimes), and the everyday landscape shots such as . I'm thinking that I should invest in the 10-22 for the wide angle shots and a lens for portraits (Will the 60mm f/2.8 suffice?), but I'm lost after that.

Here's what I'm thinking

40D w/28-135 kit lens
10-22 f3.5-4.5
60mm f/2.8
55-250 f/4-5.6
Extra Battery
220EX or 430EX flash, I'm wondering if the 220 will satisfy my requirements
Extra Battery
Decent Bag
Tripod

I'm looking for suggestions on a good lightweight tripod or even monopod and solid bag that can hold all of the above. I may invest in a grip later on but I don't see myself taking that many pictures to need it at this moment. Will the 28-135 be a good walkaround lens and the other lenses solid enough for speciality needs (10-22 for wide, 60 for portrait, and 55-250 for closeups?) Any other things you guys think I should use?

 

[automag928]

IMO and the fact I just switched from a 350d over to the 40d, the 40d is so much more camera -more so than just the stats say. The camera just feels more solid, more professional. Having the larger LCD is very nice, as well as the shutter actuation/mirror sounds "cleaner". As far as glass, you definitely are going to want a wide angle for your landscape/building subjects, but for my walk around I'm using a 24-105mm L and that seems like the perfect "all-around" lens. I also have a 50mm f1.8 and a Tamron 28-75 2.8 but that has taken a back seat the 24-105 now.

As far as flashes, I ended up with a 430ex because I got a good deal, but was very highly considering a sigma ef-530 super. I'd get at least the 430ex for the extra features/power over the 220 just so you don't end up having to buy another flash down the line.

 

[dvdnamja]

Thanks, right after posting this I read reviews that the 220 is just a tad more then the built-in flash.

I'm really debating about whether to get the kit with the 28-135 or to spring for the better 17-85. If I do get the 55-250 then that would overlay some of the extended range of the 28-135 and I hear that the 17-85 is a really nice and fast lens. I'm not too worried about the lens being EF-S since I do not plan on upgrading to a full frame camera anytime soon.

I would LOVE to get an L lens but at this point it's not in my best interest to do so since I'm still rather new to the process. I'm most likely going to hold off for a few months on the 10-22 since I'm not planning any extended trip that would warrant it until December at the earliest but will definately get the 60 for portraits. The 55-250 is not that expensive so I could swing for that. I guess it's between the 28-135 or the 17-85.

 

[Jerry-astro]

You might consider a different path... you'll read a lot about the 17-55 on this site, and virtually all of it good. I finally upgraded from my 17-85 IS a while back (not a bad lens, but pales in comparison to the 17-55). The IQ is fantastic, the combination of aperture (f2.8) and IS is simply unbeatable. And, it's on my camera 90+% of the time... covers all the right ranges for me. Nothing at all wrong with the 24-105, but you may find yourself changing lenses a lot if you're shooting fairly wide. The 10-22 is also a great lens for the widest of shots, but I'm not sure I'd want to rely on it for everything between 17mm and 22mm since I do spend a fair amount of time shooting down there. I'd miss the aperture and IS for some shots. That's just my own preference... yours may vary.

The only downside to the 17-55 is the price... but really worth it if you can manage the expense IMHO. It's also a bit weighty, but you get used to that pretty quickly.

Good luck.

Jerry

Thanks, right after posting this I read reviews that the 220 is just
a tad more then the built-in flash.

I'm really debating about whether to get the kit with the 28-135 or
to spring for the better 17-85. If I do get the 55-250 then that
would overlay some of the extended range of the 28-135 and I hear
that the 17-85 is a really nice and fast lens. I'm not too worried
about the lens being EF-S since I do not plan on upgrading to a full
frame camera anytime soon.

I would LOVE to get an L lens but at this point it's not in my best
interest to do so since I'm still rather new to the process. I'm
most likely going to hold off for a few months on the 10-22 since I'm
not planning any extended trip that would warrant it until December
at the earliest but will definately get the 60 for portraits. The
55-250 is not that expensive so I could swing for that. I guess it's
between the 28-135 or the 17-85.

 

[djang]

what makes the 17-85 a better lens? price?

 

[dvdnamja]

I've read up for a few days and it's save to say that I've decided on the 40D. I contemplated going to Nikon, especially since the Costco near me has a bundle for a D60, a 18-55 VR, a 55-200VR, bag, memory card, etc for around $825. I know that this is an entry level camera and in a different class then the 40D but I thought that since I still consider myself a newbie (I shot all of my 300D and 90% of my 400D shots in auto) that it would be the safe way to go.

But I thought about it and I think I'll go with the 40D. It's a safer bet in terms of longevity. I plan on my next SLR body sticking with me for a good 3-5 years hopefully and the build quality in the 40D seems to make it worthwhile.

I've also read up a bit on the 17-55 and while it's pricy, I do like the fact that it's a EF-S lens (not that it matter much but I like the fact that it's strictly digital and I do not plan on going FF). It's a little pricier but I also like the fact that combined with the 55-250IS that's cheaper, there's no overlap. Combine that with a 10-22 lens and a 60 and they're all EF-S. Thanks for all the help guys.