Decisions Decisions Decisions!

Okay, so I plan on getting a 350D in the near future if I ever get enough $$$. When I do get enough. I was planning on getting a package like the one in this:
http://cgi.ebay.com …goryZ107909QQcm​dZViewItem
Canon 350D | Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4.0-5.6 IS USM | 3GB CF | Tripod | everything i need to get started

But... Since being a member here, I have caught the L virus. Now I'm in a pickle. I like the range of the 17-85mm because I want a walk around lens with good range. But like I said, I want an L so im now debating on wheather to do this...

Get this package:
http://cgi.ebay.com …goryZ107909QQcm​dZViewItem
Canon 350D | Canon EF-S 18-55mm KIT | 3GB CF | Tripod | the works

This because its cheap and comes with everything... Then if I do get that, get another lens in addition. If I was to do this I would get either the
-Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM
or
-Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

So which do you think I should do?

I'm planning on mainly taking pictures of
1. Buildings of downtown Chicago
2. Landscapes
3. Animals/nature
4. MAYBE Nascar because my dad takes me to the Michigan race every year, but I doubt it because I'm never that close and they have fences around the track.
5. Normal family get togethers such as Christmas etc...
6. Concerts

With that in mind, i think the range of the 17-85 would be nice, but I would like an L series. The 17-40mm is looking pretty nice for what I'd like to use it for. So I think I'm going to go with that and maybe sell the Kit lens and start saving up for the 70-200mm. I still have time to put lots of consideration into this.

How about Sigma's 24-70 or Tamron's 28-75 in place of the 17-85? And Sigma's 18-50 if you want something wider. You get 2.8 lens rather than f/4-5.6 and for less cost.

Yeah, I looked into those. But I think im gonnaa shoot fro the 17-40mm f/4L

It's overwelming at first isn't it?
If you plan on getting the XT with the kit lens, you really won't need the range of the 17-40, although it is a clearly superior lens to the 18-55. If you decide that you want the 17-40, you would save a little money if you got the body only. The 18-55 kit lens isn't the best lens out there, but it's not bad stopped down. Since you'll be shooting buildings and landscapes, and they don't move much, with your tripod you could afford a longer shutter speed and stop down the 18-55 and get into the sweet spot and still have an acceptably sharp image.
Then take your +/- $700 and get the 70-200 f/4L which is another excellent lens and will provide you with some length for NASCAR and wildlife(although my 300mm + 1.4x still isn't long enough in a lot of situations)and provide you with some interesting perspectives on landscapes and architecture you couldn't get with just a WA lens. A mid tele lens like the 70-200 is a very useful lens, it can be used for portraiture, and to "flatten" a shot bringing the background closer to you.
The 17-85 is a great range on a 1.6x crop factor camera, it is the equal of the 28-135 on a FF camera. It's not in the same class as an L lens, but from what I have read it is pretty decent and will provide decent results. Having IS is nice for hand holding and will allow you to hand hold a much slower shutter speeds than you can without it.
If you have L fever, either of the "bargain" L's(17-40, 70-200 f/4) are great lenses, definitely a step above consumer grade glass, but don't expect miracles, they are a step above, not in a different world. That being said, my opinion has always been: buy the best glass you can afford, if you are going to upgrade a body, don't, keep your old body and buy better glass. Glass is what gets the image to the sensor and you will definitely get better images with great glass and a cheap body than with the inverse.

get tha cam and learn it yet..walk before you run..unless your used to shooting with a dslr then, go for the "L". as you know, it aint the equipment as much as it is the user, so if your new, that "L" will only make your bad pics look....well, bad. and it will make your good pics look good. id go for the cheaper (and not so shabby) sigma 24-70 first.
-zacker-

I'd skip both of them. The lenses are both too slow (F5.6 is horrible), and I don't trust microdrives. The 18-55 is fine as a starter lens, but you don't need all the cr** that comes with it.

I'd suggest getting the body only kit, and adding a Sigma 24-70 F2.8, along with a 1GB Sandisk or Kingston memory card, maybe a spare battery from sterlingtek.com , and a card reader. Later you can add a wider lens, a longer lens, or anything you feel you need, but what I suggested will be a good start. The Tamron 28-75 F2.8 is another option instead of the Sigma, I have the Tamron and like it, I think the Sigma being 4mm wider would make a better walkabout lens though.

Thank you all very much, I shall reconsider my options =]

i would jsut get the body kit and leave out the "extras" also. if you can, go with a reputable dealer like B&H or newegg.com to avoid any headaches. it's well worth the money.

This particular ebay dealer had 100% feedback and has sold about 2500 items, and they do sell body only, so if I do buy I'm most likely going to purchase through them, thanks for the insight!

I had a lot of the same thoughts that you have. I just recently ordered the XT with the kit lens, the 50mm 1.8, a 1 GB ultra II card, bag, cleaning kit and extra battery. I plan on learning the camera and getting my bearings before making any large lens purchases. Good luck with your decision.

That looks like a decent Ebay seller, but...

Remember Ebay isn't an authorized Canon dealer, I don't know if J&K is or not, but that is something I would definitely check on. A non authorized dealer may cause warranty problems if you ever need the warrany. I just did a quick check with Buydig.com(they are authorized)and an XT with the 18-55 and 70-200 f/4L is $1455.
I too would avoid all of the package things, usually those things aren't of the highest quality. The microdrive is getting to be old technology, but many use them and are happy with them, I personally would go with a flash card over the microdrive.

Yes I was looking into microdrive vs flash topics earlier... The microdrive had mixed reviews. I think I'll go with several smaller CF cards instead...

Thanks everyone! I really appreciate it!

I have been reading this site for about 2 months. I was in the same boat as you. I finally decided to buy a Rebel XT with a 17-85 IS and 70-200 L telephoto. But that certainly does not mean that you need to. It was a splurge and probably brought on by middle age craziness.

I would recommend doing what I did. I found a good local photo shop and spent over an hour with the owner discussing and trying out several cameras and lenses. There is nothing like good advice. He could have sold me more a expensive camera and lenses, but he wanted a customer that would come back. The price was modestly more than buying over the internet, but now I have someone to speak with if I have any problems. Plus, with the new Canon rebates you need to buy your camera from an official dealer. Newegg.com is not, and neither are many internet retailers.

Many of the big ones on www.pricegrabber.com are like beach, buydig, b&h, adorama, digital discount foto, Dell, Abe's.

There's a thread somewhere(I believe in Marketplace) that has the list of online vendors.

You can find a *ahem* black body..for about $6-700 now from what I've seen, and I'd suggest Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 (don't know the acronyms...ex dg macro or something, I believe) Should be up to about $1000 or so, and a cracking good kit to start out with.

Skip the extras, and definitely skip the microdrive. You won't come NEAR 3fps for very long with that kind of memory.