Noob needs EOS advice!

Hey all. Great forum here and I'm hoping to get some feedback from those who know. I'm jumping back into photography after a 20+ year absence. I've narrowed it down to a 40D or 50D. What I'm looking for is the best bang for the buck. One Canadian retailer is offering a 40D w/ 17-85 IS for $1189, w/28-135 for $1239. A 50D w/17-85 for $1749, and w/18-200 for $2049. Which version screams out as the best value. I'll be upgrading the lenses as money permits.

I would go with the 40D with the 17-85 IS... it will cover the wide to normal zoom and the 28-135 IS is annoying on the wide side

If you can get just the 40D body and get a better lens that the kit ones

if you can afford it go for the 50 with the 18-200...then you have a good all-around lens until you go to replace it and you'll learn the basics of everything from wide to tele in one convenient package without being tempted to upgrade the body. When you're comfortable get rid of the one lens and grab a few pieces of good glass

EDIT: where in BC are you from?

Best bang for the buck would be, in my opinion:
40D (or even a 30D) + 18-55 IS + 55-250 IS + 50/1.8 + 430 EX

More in the budget?
17-55/2.8 IS
70-300 IS or 70-200/4L
or go wider with a 10-22.

The 17-85 is OK, but in my view over-priced compared to the 18-55 IS.
The 28-135 is too long at the wide end for a crop body.
The 18-200 IS is a good choice for a one lens outfit, but suffers from distortion and aberration (and is more expensive than the combination of 18-55 IS and 55-250 IS)

xarqi: I think that's WAY too much for a n00b...get the basics down first. For a beginner I'd recommend an ultrazoom (such as the 18-200) before telling him to go buy three lenses, all of which should/could be replaced once he gets the hang of it...

LowriderS10 wrote in post #6632477
xarqi: I think that's WAY too much for a n00b...get the basics down first. For a beginner I'd recommend an ultrazoom (such as the 18-200) before telling him to go buy three lenses, all of which should/could be replaced once he gets the hang of it...

Why spend more to do a poorer job? The 18-55 IS + 55-250 IS will out-perform the 18-200 IS at a lower price.

The 50/1.8 gives an introduction to fast primes with very decent image quality for very little outlay. The 430 EX dramatically expands shooting opportunities.

i'd get a 40D with a 50mm. Starting with a 50 fixed is great, then when you get other lenses you will appreciate them for what they are. The 40D body is probably the best bang for the buck you can get right now. I wouldn't really recommend the 17-85 or 28-135..

word... the body + a 50 1.8 might be good to learn the basics on...that's how I started out on film SLRs. But it also limits you, which might be a bit of a turnoff

LowriderS10 wrote in post #6632477
xarqi: I think that's WAY too much for a n00b...get the basics down first. For a beginner I'd recommend an ultrazoom (such as the 18-200) before telling him to go buy three lenses, all of which should/could be replaced once he gets the hang of it...

Given that the OP said he was jumping back in after 20 years, I'm assuming he has some experience...maybe the OP is someone who owned an EOS 650!

I personally dislike super-zooms, although I'm completely different since my used 20D came with the short and the telephoto, so I've never had to look at decide between one or the other.

Thanks for the feedback guys (gals). My last SLR was a Canon A1 with a couple of good lenses. After that I went the convenience route and went to a Nikon 995 and now have a Nikon S4 P+S. I got the bug again when I started playing around with the wife's Rebel XSi kit with a 18-55 IS and a 75-300 USM Tele. I'm hooked and am going to buy some gear asap.

As far as knowledge, I have the basics and it's all coming back to me slowly. My biggest frustration so far is what I perceive to be soft images. Whether it's me of the 75-300 is still up in the air. From what I'm reading that lens can be a bit of a terd.

I posted this because it's not so much the price of the gear, but what is the best bang for the buck to start off with. L glass may be a couple of years away.

If youre willing to spend aroudn $2k, I would go with the 40D and the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS.

If you are considering the 50D, I say go with that. It is a much better spec than the 40D. Another lens to consider is the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 which will give you a good fast lens at a reasonable price.

Also, it maybe worth while contacting Kerso to see if he ships to Canada as his prices are very good. I got a good £300 off retail price through him when I bought my 70-200 f/2.8 L IS.

The 40D is a MORE than capable camera. It's awesome in fact. Amazing. The benefits of the 50D are subtle and not ground breaking.

If you were into photography, and are used to good quality (I mean, you had an A-1 which is one sweet sweet camera) then I'd personally get the 40D and the 17-55 F/2.8 IS. Somebody like you who knows their way around cameras and have used good equipment before would probably appreciate a high quality lens. The 17-55 is the BEST lens you can get for the 40D/50D so there are no compromises there.

You can get the 40D/17-55 combo for $2089 at thecamerastore.com, which is a better setup than the 50D/18-200 in my opinion. You said you already have a 75-300 telephoto lens so I'd definitely go for the uber high quality 17-55 over the 18-200.