All these lenses are scaring me. Looking into buying my first DSLR, sounds like the D60 from Nikon, or the XSi from Canon. From what i've been reading people are suggesting to buy the body only and go for an aftermarket lense.

What kind of basic lense am I looking at, and how much of a dent am I looking at in my bank account? For a cheap bugger, is the kit lense going to get me going?

Kit lenses have got a lot better - the 17-85 USM IS that came with my 40D is really sweet.

Really, most kit lenses are good *for the price* (considering most work out to be about $100 with the package price)... but as with everything else, you get what you pay for.

Any thoughts on the nikon 18-105? I'm new to this and just want a little more range or should i just fork out the money for the 18-200? I've got the D40x w/non VR kit lens and my shaking hands are really starting to bug me..:p

I think the 18-105 will give you better image quality, but of course, the 18-200 gives you better reach. What will the majority of your shooting consist of? You can always buy the 18-105 and then buy a 70-300 or something later.

That's where I got mine from.

No, you won't get raped by customs. All they charge is GST/PST...since I'm in Alberta, all I get is GST...w00t! I've ordered from S4L twice and BH once and I've never been charged much more than that (there's also a handling fee that gets slapped on every once in a while, but it's fairly negligible).

+1 for the Tammy 17-50...I'm madly in love with mine haha...sharp as hell, nice colours...HOWEVER...focusing sucks in low light (usually hunts for a while then gives up lol) and the focus is loud/high-pitched as hell and gets tiring after a while (oh...and good luck being stealthy and trying to get candid shots when the stupid thing goes Bzzzzzz-zzzzzztttt at 140 dB haha).

And another one for Tamron 17-50mm! :D Awesome lens!

Thinking of picking up a canon 70-200L f2.8, but am not sure if I should get it with or without IS. I also going to pick up the 5DMKII once it comes out, so I'm thinking, get the non-is and crank up the ISO since it's SOOO much more tolerant than my XTi haha.

There's about a $500 price difference between them.

Thoughts?

i'm sure IS would help out alot at the long end. but i guess it really depends on if u have a steady hand or not

If you haven't pre-ordered it, you probably won't get it until sometime next year. :(

I was thinking about picking one up used (preferably with warrenty still). There's a whole ton of them around!

Colin, if you are not sure, you could try mine if you like.

do you have IS or non-IS? Is it f2.8 or f4? (sorry, I dont recall, I know it's an L tho lol)

I have the canon 70-200 f2.8L IS. ;)

baller status! haha

when I'm ready, I might get in touch with you to check it out!

Once you try it, you'll be ready to buy one on the spot haha.

i've been stuck on this question for the longest time, and im gonna suck it up and ask...i feel stupid asking simply becuz if i just ask..then u will most likely all tell me to get it

I own a XTI btw..

i really like the range from my 17-85mm...but it just didnt cut it for optical quality...
so did some searchin...on 4 lens that all cover my needs of

a) at least 17mm wide
b) FIXED f2.8
c) SHARPNESS

the struggle to decide on the following based on pricing from $$$ to not so much $$$. and yes, im very watchful of my monies and dont mind spending for the right product

1. Canon EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS
2. Tokina 16-50 f2.8
3. Tamron 17-50 f2.8
4. Sigma 17-50 f2.8

as u can see, they all cover a decent range, and can take decent portraits. Before you tell me to buy 24-70 f2.8L...i need some thots, and some user reviews

I have read NOTHING but FANTASTIC AMAZING GLASS out of the canon, on par with the above L lens. Price is concern for being an EFS lens...even tho i dont think im going full frame anytime soon.

but has anyone ever used the above? My friend said the Tammy is yellowish for the colors, but thats one person out of many reviews i read that its great

but yea..
opinions?
im currently leaning towards the tokina..and i hope this post will make or break the purchase of one of them. i've done a month of research and just cant make up my mind becuz well..all the reviews are..good in every aspect. I have demoed every one of them xept the tokina at camera shops multiple times..and still cant make up my mind, its all very sharp!

The Tamron is tops for bang for the buck as per all the reviews I have not read about the color problem, but I have read about some having focusing issues, as with most 3rd party lenses.

Still, I'm trying to avoid crop body lenses, just about all my lenses are crop body, minus my 50 and 90 primes. You might not get a full frame body now or next year, but who knows, 3-5 yrs down the line, you might be able to get a FF body for the price of a D300 or 50D. When I was starting out, I was so concerned about getting the ranges covered, which is why I bought a 18-200 as my first lens. Now I want something fast and good quality. I'd say most of my shots are in the 10-40 range, which is why I'm considering a 17-35 F2.8 and use a 50 prime when I need more range. So rather than a 17-55 F2.8 that's a crop lens, how about a 16-35 F2.8 with a 50 prime when you need more range. At least you get FF coverage. I have a Sigma 10-20 already so I've thought about getting a 24-70, however, that lens is so long and heavy that I doubt I'd enjoy bring it out with me for causal shooting and vacation use.

Get the tamron 17-50, compliment it with a tokina 11-16, and you've got a 2.8 range from 11-50.

niccccccce.

A 24-70 would be a waste on a crop body.

True, but if you already have a wide angle, I figure it's alright. Better to plan for the future.

so im somewhat now leaning towards the tamron..just becuz the canon i think is overkill...
i believe its fate that it wont be mine..i saw one on CL for 850..and was QUICKLY snatched up by someone. I cant be approved for financing due to car loan and some other things.

the tamron im readin is very good for the price. but having a lens that has digusting contrast issues form f2.8-4, how managable is that...

ughhh
my english sux
sorry

I'd say buy what you really really want. No point in paying for something that's cheaper only to regret it or keep longing for the one you really want. Seems like you're simply settling for the Tamron and you're not really liking its issues. Deep inside, you know you want that Canon. Work some OT to make up for the difference.

I'm looking to buy an Xsi in the near future and was wondering what a good starter lens would be? Should I stick with the kit lens (which I hear is OK for the money but far from being great), or go with something else? (I'm actually looking at the 17-85 IS which seems to roughly cover the same range - and appears to be the kit lens for the 40D).

Are there any difference between the two optics wise? (other than a slightly larger range and USM on the 17-85) Is the 17-85 a decent lens vs the Xsi kit lens? I've read reviews of each one, but haven't really seen any comparisons side by side so I don't really know what differences there are between the two.

Or should I just skip those two and go with something else?

I mainly do scenery type pictures, and I've taken an interest in night photography as well. However, right now I'm just looking at an all purpose lens that will suffice for 90% of the situations, and also nothing that will break the bank as I'm really just starting out in the DSLR and am trying to get a feel if it's a hobby I want to build on or not.

All kit lenses aren't great. But personally I'd say just shoot with the kit lens for a while, then you'll discover what you need rangewise, rather than buying a lens off the bat and finding out you went in the other direction. it'll also save the bank if you find dSLR isn't for you