Need help with approach to purchase body + lens

[KurtKuhn]

Given that I'm ready to step up to the DSLR world with 2 years of learning on an S45 (great camera on which to learn), I would like some comments on my buying strategy.

So what is my objective in a new purchase? Capture even better photos that I'm already pleased with from the diminutive S45. I want to shoot landscapes, portraits, and have a great rig to take awesome vacation pics.

With around $1800 that's burning a hole in my pocket, I'm in a quandary and would like to bounce a couple of ideas:

Used 10D + new 24-70L f2.8 for about $1800-$1900?
New 20D + new Tamron 28-75 f2.8 for about $1800-$1900?

My goal is to learn the whole camera with a lens that will suit 90% of my current needs. The range of the two lenses above should cover what I'm used to. Then over time, use that knowledge & experience gained as the leaping off point for new purchases.

Going forward: given that I've owned the S45 for 2 years without an upgrade, I'll probably have to live with a new body for AT LEAST 2 years. Other lenses considered in accumulating over time are 50 F1.4 for indoors and 17-40L for general purpose plus landscapes.

BTW, since I've used / needed Flash Exposure Compensation on the S45, and since the DRebel doesn't have that, I've ruled out that model from consideration.

I'll hold which way I'm leaning until I hear back some opinions.

Thanks for your time and attention.

[nosquare2003]

I will choose New 20D + Tamron 28-75/2.8. But that's me.

[commando]

I'd definitely get the 20D with the Tamron lens. From memory DPReview.com recommended new users get the 20D if they can afford it, but said the upgrade for 10D owners probably wasn't worthwhile. The main drawcards for me would be the fast turn on time (0.3 sec instead of 2.5) and maybe the 2MP extra, and moreso general refinement. The tamron is a great lens, I have one, and it's said to be near L quality.

[Andy_T]

I second (actually: third :lol: ) the other opinions.

In fact, that's exactly the setup I'm pondering ... 20D, 28-75 XR DI, 1.4/50.

I am considering the Tokina 17/3.5 prime instead of the more expensive 17-40, though.

Best regards,
Andy

PS: With the 20D, you might also get the kit lens. Although not great, it will give you some wide angle capability from the start. But then, with the Tokina only about 360$ ...

[commando]

The kit lens is definitely a good idea.

[CoolToolGuy]

When I got my 20D I already had the 24-70 L, but I got it with the 17-85 IS kit lens. It is not an 'L', but it is now my default lens on the 20D. It has a terrific range. I will swap it out for the 24-70 L in the right circumstances, but it is worth considering as an everyday lens.

My 2 cents.

Have Fun,

[KurtKuhn]

When I got my 20D I already had the 24-70 L, but I got it with the 17-85 IS kit lens. It is not an 'L', but it is now my default lens on the 20D. It has a terrific range. I will swap it out for the 24-70 L in the right circumstances, but it is worth considering as an everyday lens.

CoolToolGuy, that's exactly what I'm looking for to start: " the default or everyday lens".

I agree that the 17-85 has excellent range, but I was concerned that the lens at F4.5 - F5.6 was not fast enough indoors. Does the IS of the 17-85 coupled with high ISO capability of 20D get you to the bank for low light indoor shots? i.e. indoor shots without flash.

Since the Tamron is at F2.8 for all ranges, that draws me to that lens as "an everyday lens," indoors or out. Of course, I need to consider the depth of field before I convince myself that the Tamron at F2.8 is the magic cure for low light.

Someday, I would also like to have a 24-70L, but with the cost of the body included in this purchase, I need a less expensive alternative.

[KurtKuhn]

May have found the answer I was seeking for the 17-85:

ref. Luminous Landscape
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/20d-part1.shtml

"Given the low noise characteristics of the 20D the f/4-f/5.6 maximum aperture on this lens is less of an issue than it would have been with earlier digital cameras or with film cameras. Bump the ISO to 400 or even 800 and in combination with the one to two stops of extra shutter speed achievable with IS it's like working with an f/2 lens would have been just a few years ago."

[psychedelic_never]

How about a DRebel + Hack + 17-40/4L + 70-200/4L + 28-75 XR DI for $1800 with the triple rebates. If you are just looking for FEC the hack will give you that.

[Tom W]

I'd say that the 20D with the 17-85 IS kit lens is a good setup. Throw in a fast 50/1.8 for low-light situations and you have a good setup. 28 mm is not wide angle on the 1.6X sensor cameras such as the 10D & 20D.

[ScottE]

From you original choices, I would choose the 10D and Canon 24-70L. In 2 or 3 years, both the 10D and 20D will be surpassed by better models, but the 24-70 will still be one of the best lenses ever made. The Tamron 28-85 would still be a good lens, but it is not quite the quality of construction of the Canon and does not have full time manual override. I consider manual override to be a necessity because I assign auto-focus to the AE button and use manual focus to fine tune much of the time.

For a person starting out, I agree with the suggestion of the 20D + 17-85 IS. This gives you a much wider useable range from wide angle to short telephoto. If you are going to be hand holding in low light you are not going to see any difference in image quality due to optical quality, but you will see a difference due to image stabilization.

I do not agree that shooting a fast lens at f/2.8 is the same as shooting an image stabilized lens at f/5.6 in low light. The effect of camera motion may be similar, the there is much less depth of field at f/2.8 so anything not close to the plane of focus will appear softer than if shot with a smaller aperture. Unless I intentionally want to blur the background I prefer to shoot at f/5.6 or 8 with an image stabilized lens. (Even better is to shoot at f/8 or f/11 with an L or prime lens on a tripod. --- That may be a bit overstated too. At f/8 or 11 most Canon non-L lenses are pretty sharp.)

[KurtKuhn]

Thanks to all for posting. I've decided to go with the gently used 10D and the 24-70L. I think I'll wait until after the holidays, though. Gotta wait for all the 20D gift recipients to put their 10D's up for sale to further flood the market & (hopefully) drive down the price a little further.

BTW, thanks to psychedelic_never for turning me onto the DRebel hacks. Found a lot of good info after a little research. I had no idea they squeezed so much out of the firmware. But, the 10D still calls to me...and those DRebel rebates sure are shouting back. :wink:

FWIW, here's my rationale: Given my entry point into having to buy both lens & body, I want to really make an investment in great glass. I will have that lens for as long as Canon keeps the EF mount type current.

They way I look at DSLR's is as follows: they are computers that capture images. As such, a big investment will get you really nice camera that will last through a few years of current capability. A modest investment should give a very capable piece which will remain relatively current for a couple of years, after which I can upgrade. Who knows, by then I'll be eyeing-up a 30D, 40D? Bottom line is I'll still have the 24-70L & hopefully other follow on "L"enses.