Other lens' or a 30d?

[Mr. Clean]

Okay, shortly as of this week I'll have the Sigma 10-20 in my grubby paws. My 24-70 2.8 is out getting a tune up, I'm extremely happy with my 50 1.8 and my Sigma 70-300 APO. I've had an external flash for some time (420ex) so I feel I'm pretty well taken care of gear wise. First off, I love landscapes, cityscapes and the occasional portrait. I'm at a crossroad though, I figure I have three choices for which path to go down first (as I'm sure the final outcome will be the same, just owning them all) and I'd like a little input. I'm happy with my XT to a certain extent, but I would like the larger body, LCD, picture styles, lower ISO and better AF of the 30D
Would you -
A. Be happy with the XT and buy the Sigma 30mm 1.4, then the Canon 85mm 1.8.
B. Be happy with the lens collection and offload the XT and upgrade to a 30d
C. Regardless of either, purchase a 70-200 2.8 (Canon or Sigma, preferably the Canon version)
I'll end up with a 30d or the lenses, it's just a matter of which to get first. I've already got the focal lengths covered with my 10-20, 24-70, and 70-300 but I don't have the sharpness or low light ability of the 30 and 85... The price of both together is a bit more than upgrading the XT to a 30D. However, glass is forever and bodies are just until you want the next cool thing :)
Thoughts?

[Headcase650]

Are there thing about your 350D that are holding you back?
Is there ever a time that the 24-70 just isnt fast enough for what you are shooting or the depth of field is just to much?
Is the 70-300 not performing up to your standards or is it not fast enough.

Right now I cary a 20D, siggy 10-20, tammy 28-75, siggy 70-200, siggy 1.4 TC and a 550EX. Im more than happy with my gear. If sigma puts HSM into the 24-70 Ill drop the tamron and get the sig for the faster focusing.

If you need to Just through a dart at all your gear and whatever breaks upgrade. :)

[cjm]

Option D. Buy a slightly used 20D and buy another lens and wait for a real upgrade rather then get the 20Dn (Err 30D)?

20D is still a great camera. The screen is a little smaller then the 30D but thats basically the only "upgrade" on the 30D. It really is a great camera.

[grego]

Option D. Buy a slightly used 20D and buy another lens and wait for a real upgrade rather then get the 20Dn (Err 30D)?

20D is still a great camera. The screen is a little smaller then the 30D but thats basically the only "upgrade" on the 30D. It really is a great camera.

There are others. 1/3 stop ISO is a big thing, if you do low light. One thing he mentioned. The 20D would give him essentially the same thing as the 350D as far as 1/2 stops and pretty much the same quality. The 30D is supposed to have improved AF from the 20D. And the 30D does have a bigger buffer. And then there's spot metering of course. Now they are all relative to user, but then any feature is for any camera.

Like the 1D would be better in all things except for massive cropping and high ISO's.

However, with that said, i'd go glass first and upgrade there. Forget the 20D, as you can put in more money now into glass. You can get the 70-200 2.8 from sigma and the 85 1.8 for basically the same price of the 30D.

[Diminished29]

Get the glass, the XT is a great camera from what I've read, if I we're you I'd just wait a year or two save up some more and upgrade to a 5D later on down the road as the come down in price.

[Thunderheart]

Get the glass.

My 70-200mm f2.8L IS arrived today and I'm blown away by it. With the money I used to purchase the lens I could have got a 30D and a cheapish longer zoom than what came with my 300D, but DSLRs will continue to get upgraded on a regular basis and the older models will lose their value rather quickly (especially at a consumer/semi pro level). Good glass holds its value extremely well.

Cheers, Helen

[Mr. Clean]

Good points, I really appreciate the feedback. I don't think I'm held back by the lens' I own now, just that there are occasions when I want the minimal DOF that the 85 and 30mm have in addition to great IQ.
The 70-300 is really an amazing lens as far as IQ and bang-for-the-buck goes, but it can be terribly slow, especially when you consider that it's at it's best stopped down to about f11 or less. There's times when I'd love to use it for candids indoors but to do so I need to have it wide open at 5.6 or crank the ISO up. The lens doesn't like being wide open, and the XT doesn't do as well as a 30D at high ISO so I'm up sh*t creek either way it seems.
Good thoughts though...Perhaps I will do for glass first. If I find I'm not using either one as much as I feel I should be I can always offload to help finance the 30D (which I'm sold on over the 20d - a lot of minor changes add up IMHO).

Speaking of 70-200 - Does anyone have any experience with the Sigma APO 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG MACRO HSM? How does it stack up to the non-macro version?

[Headcase650]

I have the 70-200 ex hsm pre DG version and couldnt be more satisfied except for maybe upgrading to the Canon IS version when I have an extra $1600 laying around. Image quality between it and any of canons 70-200 is neck and neck depending on your particular copy of either the canon or sigma. The sigmas HSM is very fast and silent, maybe...maybe slightly slower than canons USM and thats probably measured in thousandths of a second. As far as the Macro version is concerned I would probably get the non macro because 1) its lighter, 2) its cheaper and 3) the macro version only provides 1:3.5 reproduction witch I dont think is a big deal considering your 70-300 produces 1:2 and should be fairly sharp stopping down to f8 or f11 and you will need to do that with most macro just to get a decent depth of field up close.