Starting Kit

Hi folks, I am brand new here and also to the digital slr scene. This looks like a great site with tons of information.

I am making the jump from a point and shoot to dslr. My photos will range from some indoor to mostly outdoor scenery,wildlife and some sports.

I am considering the following eqpt. and have all but pulled the trigger on ordering it. If anyone sees something that I could/should do different please let me know.

Camera: 40D

Lens one: Canon 17-85mm IS USM

Lens two: Canon 70-300mm IS USM

4 Gig card

Two UV filters

Backpack style bag

Looking at tripods as well

Thanks for the input

John

This looks like a good outfit for a first jump to a DSLR. I would recommend two 2gb cards instead of one 4. And buy the best quality. The flash card is a single failure point that will ruin your day.

As for the filters, if you're getting them to protect the front element, a hood is a better choice in my opinion. It actually contributes to the quality of the image by reducing glare instead of adding another piece of glass in front of your optics.

You might want to add a flash, for example the 430.

looks good, buy it.

If you can afford a little more...

17-40 f/4L
70-200 f/4L
50 f/1.8
430EX

This is a good list.

I highly recommend Tamron 17-50/2.8 instead of Canon 18-55 IS because I believe it's better IQ and much faster. Unless you feel you want IS in 18-55 range.

I also recommend a CPL - I started using it recently on all outside shots when the weather is good and I believe it makes a lot of difference. If you get 2 Canon lenses you only need one filter, otherwise a step-up ring can be had very inexpensively from hvstar.com (and they have good prices on filters, too).

Canon 50/1.8 is cheap, very high IQ and fast. A great backup / low light / portrait lens for little money.

I'd hold off buying a flash until you're sure you need it.

I also agree that 2 smaller cards are better than 1 big one.

Finally, get a backup battery. Sterlingtek's are cheap and decent.

Good luck !

Anyone recomend the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 versus the 17-85 IS Canon I am looking at?

Oh, I didn't realize you were refering to the Canon 17-85mm IS USM. I thought you were talking about the new kit (17-85 mm IS).

I don't know how Canon 17-85mm IS USM compares to Tamron IQ wise.

ebann wrote in post #5859425
If you can afford a little more...

17-40 f/4L
70-200 f/4L
50 f/1.8
430EX

I used almost this exact outfit for a while except that I had a 420EX flash and my 50mm f/1.8 was the older (and better) Mark-I.

It was a fair outfit but I really missed the range between 40 and 70mm. The 50mm didn't quite fill that range since using it meant a lens switch.

I bought a second camera which helped a little bit but, I was still not happy with the general outfit. Of course this is just my opinion and should not be construed to be applicable to all photographers:

The 17-40L; although a very nice lens just isn't long enough for me to use as a go-to mid range zoom. The f/4 aperture also limits my use as the go-to lens because it is a bit too slow.

The 70-200mm f/4L (non-IS) is a great lens but, for me, it is not a carry everywhere and use in most situations lens. I reserved the 70-200mm f/4L as a lens to either use in bright conditions or to use on a tripod or monopod.

I have gone through several lens and camera combinations until I settled on what is the best (but, most expensive) for my uses: 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and 70-200mm f/4L IS on 30D and 40D cameras.

I carry this duo everywhere and it serves me very well indeed. I no longer need to carry the 50mm f/1.8 lens because of the low light capability of the 17-55mm and I use the 70-200mm f/4L IS 3-4x more often than I was ever able to use the non-IS version.

I will agree that this outfit is probably a lot more expensive than most photographers can or want to spend.

I would suggest the 17-50mm Tamron f/2.8 and the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS lenses as a great pair. Although the 17-50mm doesn't have the range of the 17-85 IS lens; it does have a bit better image quality. Additionally, I have never missed the gap between my 17-55m and 70-200mm lenses.

Amamba wrote in post #5860699
Oh, I didn't realize you were refering to the Canon 17-85mm IS USM. I thought you were talking about the new kit (17-85 mm IS).

The which now? Are there two 17-85 IS lenses?

I personally believe that a flash should be one of the main pieces of any starter kit. None of the lenses that you listed are fast enough for low light shooting. A good flash will help you change the quality of your images.

xarqi wrote in post #5860831
The which now? Are there two 17-85 IS lenses?

Me bad. 18-55 IS.. ehm ... was what I was thinking about.

TaDa wrote in post #5861087
I personally believe that a flash should be one of the main pieces of any starter kit. None of the lenses that you listed are fast enough for low light shooting. A good flash will help you change the quality of your images.

Welcome to the forum Powerguy. Another vote for adding a flash to your kit.
When I first started buiding up my gear, I had the philosophy that I would work with what I had, until I was missing too many shots because of insufficient equipment. It didn't take long before I bought a flash!
I don't see a card reader in your line up.??

hi John! welcome to the forum!

i would also like to suggest the tamron 17-50 instead of the 17-85 IS. if you could stretch your budget, the EF-S 17-55 IS is an awesome lens.

powerguy wrote in post #5860612
Anyone recomend the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 versus the 17-85 IS Canon I am looking at?

Welcome to the cauldron John..

Yes.. The Tamron is a few stops faster than the Canon with brilliant image quality.. I'd go for speed over IS any day..