Need to start over :(

[adam_griffith]

<p> So recently my rebel XSi, as well as my tamron 18-270 and my 50mm f/1.8, were stolen out of my car, and I now have to think about rebuilding my system. I have one remaining lens, a tamron 90mm macro, and i see this as an opportunity to upgrade my equipment, so I'm going to an xxD. Unfortunately, the total cost of the items stolen was about $1800 and my deductable is $5000, so insurance isn't going to be much help here. I really don't have much preference between 40d and 50d, so I'm just going get what I can find the best relative deal on. The new 7D looks pretty sweet, and i wish I could pic that one up, but the camera, body only, would completely use up my budget, so it is a questionable option Anyway, I am most about a lens for whatever camera I end up getting, as I was not satisfied with the quality of my 18-270. I need a normal zoom with good quality that won't break the bank, as I'd like to keep the total budget, camera and lens, under $1600. So I just need a single lens to act as a jumping off point as I rebuild my system. I've heard that the 28-135 IS USM is one of the best options? Anyway, what would be a good lens to look into. Thanks for all the help, photo.net is such a great resource!</p>

[PuppyDigs]

<p>The 28-135 IS is a good lens if you're a normal to tele sorta guy. In other words if scales to about a 50-200 equivalent zoom. I actually like that range as I grew with a 70-210 but it's not for everyone.</p>

<p>I think the 40D and EF-S 15-85 3.5-5.6 IS USM (yet to be released) could prove to be a killer combo. I've seen new 40D cameras going for $800 and less and the 15-85 is $800, so there's your budget all shot to crap but a nice outfit with wide to short tele. The EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS USM is only a benjamin more and will be a better fit if you love to troll streets, bars and casinos at night.</p>

[geoffs1]

<p>Bummer about the theft...</p>

<p>I'd also recommend the 40D and the best value xxD right now.</p>

<p>Lenses are tough. There are lots of options. PF's suggestions are all good, IMHO. There are also the well-liked Tamron and Sigma normal zooms to consider, too.</p>

[david_ahn]

<p>You may be able to pick up a 50D with 28-135 IS on Craigslist.org for about $1K (I almost bought it, but decided to wait for the 7D). The lens can then be sold for $300-350, resulting in a net cost of $700 or so for the body. My rationale for the 50D is that it has 50% more pixels with the same per-pixel sensor noise, giving you much more "headroom" before you start lusting after more megapixels.</p>

<p>As for a lens, I'd strongly suggest you rent/borrow a 50mm f/1.4 and try it as a main walkaround lens and see if you can live with the tradeoffs. Aside from the lack of wide angle focal lengths, and having to walk to frame your shots more, you will get phenomenal indoor shots at ISO 1600 w/o a flash with awesome background blur. And with the extra 5 megapixels, you don't have to have the perfect framing, you can crop a ton and still get the detail you want!</p>

<p>If you like landscapes, consider a 15mm f/2.8 fisheye (Canon or Sigma depending on best price; reviews say both are very sharp). You can get awesome fisheye shots or use a fisheye to rectilinear filter to get standard rectilinear ultrawide landscapes (rectilinear ultrawide primes are expensive!).</p>

[henrik_lauridsen]

<p>Lens wise, I think your best option is to think back on what you disliked about your 18-270. Would you have liked a fixed aperture lens? Then take a look at the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 or the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS for a good walk around lens. I have the Tamron, and I am very satisfied with it. The Canon is supposed to be a bit better + it has got IS, but it also costs twice as much. Either lens will be a good first lens in your system. Another option is the 17-85, which can be found bundled with the 40D or 50D. I have not tried it, but reviews suggest that it is not as good as either of the lenses mentioned before.<br>

I have the 50mm f/1.8, but if I lost it, I would probably go for the f/1.4 instead. Then again, if your budget is restricted, and you need it now, just get the f/1.8.<br>

To cover the long end, I would wait until I had money in my budget for a 70-200 f/4L. Even though it is the cheapest member of Canon's 70-200 L family, it will blow you away.<br>

Having only tried a 400D/XTi, I will not try and offer any suggestion on 40D vs 50D.</p>

[ds_meador]

<p>Sorry to hear about the theft.<br>

I think you could get a 40D, Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, Canon EF-S 55-250 IS, and another EF 50 f/1.8 for the budget you mentioned. That would pretty much replace the range you had, but with better quality than the 18-270.<br>

Just one option to consider.<br>

DS Meador</p>

[alan_green4]

<p>i'd go with a 40d and splurge on good glass. do-everything zooms are a nice value money-wise and a good idea if you're only carrying one lens but optically not that good.<br>

i'd either commit to the cost of a good zoom like the 17-40 or 17-55, or go with a good prime combo like the 50 1.4 and a 28 or 35<br>

if it was me i'd get the normal/wide range covered first and sit tight for a while before getting the tele end -- the 70-200 f4 IS is a great lens<br>

40d goes for around 800-900 dollars, so now is a good time to pick one up</p>

[bob_osullivan]

<p>Sigma 17-70 $350 or Kit lens 18-55 IS$250 Normal Zoom / Walkabout</p>

<p>Canon 70-200 F4 $550 Long / Light weight tele zoom</p>

<p>Canon 50 1.8 $80 Portrait and low light</p>

<p>30D body $500 Basically same as 40D in IQ (better on High ISO noise in my experience) less frills.</p>

<p>Used 550EX flash $200 on Ebay</p>

<p>A well rounded system covering most basic needs and capable of yielding better images than your old system. $1600-$1700</p>

<p>This is about what I carry as a backup system to my main gear or keep in the car at all times for those unexpected photo opps.</p>

<p> </p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I saw in one post that the (one?) kit lens offered with the new 7D is to be the 28-135mm IS lens for only $200 more than the body alone. Throw in a used 50mm f/1.8 and you'd not be too much over budget.</p>

[steven_f1]

<p>The 28-135mm IS ($410) was the kit lens for the 40D and 50D and I would expect that you could get one used at a good price. It's a mater of opion as to if it is the best choice. For a APS-C camera 28mm is not that wide for a general purpose lens. The <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/647503-REG/Canon_3814B010_EOS_7D_SLR_Digital.html">7D</a> is currently advertised with the 28-135mm for $1899.95 which I find strange. Canon also anounced the 15-85 and 18-135 and I was expecting one of them to be the 7D kit lens. If you could save some additional money to increase your budget buy $350 you could get Canon's latest with a lens.</p>

<p>From my own personal experience lenses with a zoom range of less than 3 seem to have the best optical quality. So if you want a general purpose lens that goes wide to telephoto you really don't have that many options from Canon. The 18-55, 17-55, 15-85, 18-135, and 17-85. The best one on the list is probably the 17-55 (about $1000) while the worst is probably the 17-85. The 15-85 and 18-135 are new and have not been tested. The 18-55 IS is the standard kit lens for the Rebel series camera and is the cheapest at $170, but seems to do well based on reviews. The Tamron 17-50 mentioned earlier goes for about $500. Sigma does offer two 18-50mm lenses. A 18-50 f3.5-5.6 ($140) and the 18-50 f2.8 ($420). </p>

<p>So based on the zoom range I would guess (I have not tested these lenses) the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 or the Sigma 18-59 f2.8 would offer the best optical performance for a reasonable cost. For a general purpose lens I would prefer one with IS. Unfortunately only the Canon lenses have it.</p>

[JDMvW]

<blockquote>

<p>Unfortunately only the Canon lenses have it</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's true insofar as the letters "IS" go, but the third-party lens makers offer stabilization equivalents. Called things like OS, and so on.<br>

Sigma has OS lenses in 18-135 and 18-200mm, plus other focal lengths.<br>

Tamron has VC lens 18-270 and so on.</p>

[robertbody]

<p>Some people are happy with 50D, but many complain about the look of images because of the larger number of pixels on the sensor. I have used both, not for long, but I would prefer 40D to "play it safe". 40D can do well in the right hands. I would rather spend a lot on one of a very specific list of lenses (super-telephoto primes) and have 40D mounted on it. On a different note, full-frame cameras (neither 40D nor 50D are) have the advantage for low-light performance where you want to use higher ISO.<br /> A zoom lens will have compromises, and the larger the range the more the concern should be. In addition to the amount of light they need, is the laziness-factor where you spend more time zooming and less time thinking. A prime lens makes you think more about composition, but many times you just want a zoom. I use a 105mm prime lens and wish for a 70-200mm lens instead, because the framing can be perfected by zooming in/out but that would come at a greater cost and more weight too.</p>

[david_ahn]

<p>You may be able to pick up a 50D with 28-135 IS on Craigslist.org for about $1K (I almost bought it, but decided to wait for the 7D). The lens can then be sold for $300-350, resulting in a net cost of $700 or so for the body. My rationale for the 50D is that it has 50% more pixels with the same per-pixel sensor noise, giving you much more "headroom" before you start lusting after more megapixels.</p>

<p>As for a lens, I'd strongly suggest you rent/borrow a 50mm f/1.4 and try it as a main walkaround lens and see if you can live with the tradeoffs. Aside from the lack of wide angle focal lengths, and having to walk to frame your shots more, you will get phenomenal indoor shots at ISO 1600 w/o a flash with awesome background blur. And with the extra 5 megapixels, you don't have to have the perfect framing, you can crop a ton and still get the detail you want!</p>

<p>If you like landscapes, consider a 15mm f/2.8 fisheye (Canon or Sigma depending on best price; reviews say both are very sharp). You can get awesome fisheye shots or use a fisheye to rectilinear filter to get standard rectilinear ultrawide landscapes (rectilinear ultrawide primes are expensive!).</p>

[mdc002]

<p>Adam, a $5000.00 deductible? Is that deductible on your comprehensive, theft policy because that's the policy that usually covers something like your camera being ripped off?</p>