DSLR jump.... Is this 30D setup OK?

[spddmon]

Hi all, im getting ready to get my feet wet in DSLR soon. I've decided on getting a Canon 30D and these lenses:

EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM
EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Prime
EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM
EF 70-200mm f/4L USM

I need help cutting the cost down a bit without sacrificing photo quality. The whole setup with the 30D is a wee shy of $4000, which is my budget limit. I need the extra dough for other goodies like mem cards, filters, mortgage:p , ect. Thx in advance for the help

[jamison55]

Do you really need a 50 f1.4 and 60 f2.8? Seems like a pretty similar focal length to me. Why not keep the 50 f1.4 and buy a kenko extention tube for the macro...

[spddmon]

Thx for the info, I didn't even know there were stuff like that out there. Thx a lot.

[woffles]

What do you normally like to shoot? From what I've read on the 70-200 f4 it needs a decent amount of light to get sharp shots. You need a quick shutter speed probably over 300 to handhold at 200mm. The 70-200 2.8 IS is expensive and large but good for low light. That, a 50mm 1.8 which is a good cheap lens and something for wide angle would cover most of what you need. Sigma makes a 70-200 macro f2.8 lens which is supposed to be very good. It's around $800-900. Read through the reviews on fredmiranda.com about different lenses also. I wouldn't rush and buy everything at once. The 30D and the 50/1.8 will give you good results and let you figure out exactly which lens you want most. Do you keep moving back or closer? Good way to decide which range you prefer.

Also, starting out with a DSLR is a large learning curve. They are a different creature and take different skills from a point and shoot. Too many people buy them and use the auto modes which in my opinion is a waste of time. Never ever use them on mine. AV, TV or M are all I'm ever in. You want an external flash also. Trust me on this. It's a whole different world shooting with good lighting. Photography is about light not lenses. Better light is more important then better lenses, usually.

[spddmon]

I travel alot, i take alot of photos at car races, landscapes, plants and insects. those are the most images i get.

[coldrain]

For landscapes I have a 12-24 f4 Tokina now... and for plants/insects and such I have a 90mm Tamron macro. For the longer end stuff I have that 70-200 f4 L... and to fill things in between the 12-24 and 70-200 I have a Sigma 18-50 f2.8, which I also use for landscape stuff.

So I do think you have a nice list of lenses there, that is relativily light (important to me too, no way would I want to carry a 70-200 f2.8 with me).
The biggest part of your budget will be swallowed by the 17-55 IS, but that may be money well spent, especially if you dislike using flash.

[CptOfGondor]

Don't you get like a 17-85mm bundled with the 30D or soemthing like that. I dunno too much about Canon lenses but f4 doesn't seem all that bad right? i mean it was pretty common for 135mm portrait lenses to be f3.5.

I actually suggest taking a look at the battery grip for the 30D. It will help provide extra weight at the user end and balance the lens making it easier to hold steady. Plus you get that hint of a Professional SLR look with the batt grip attached.

[coldrain]

Don't you get like a 17-85mm bundled with the 30D or soemthing like that. I dunno too much about Canon lenses but f4 doesn't seem all that bad right? i mean it was pretty common for 135mm portrait lenses to be f3.5.

I actually suggest taking a look at the battery grip for the 30D. It will help provide extra weight at the user end and balance the lens making it easier to hold steady. Plus you get that hint of a Professional SLR look with the batt grip attached.
When was it pretty common that single focal length lenses were f3.5? That is only common with cheaper lenses where they wanted to keep the filter sizes common, I think.
Computers running ar 8mhz or slower were pretty common too 15 years ago.
And cars did not have fuel injection either, years ago. And rusted in the showroom.

And the 17-85mm lens is not stellar, although it is not as bad as the stuff Pentax bundles with their cameras. But it is not a lens from the Canon line-up I would recommend.

And for someone who mentions he travels a lot I do not think adding unnecessary weight to his camera makes a lot of sense either, just to appear "professional".... Maybe I failed to get the point you were trying to make.

[spddmon]

Thx for all the input guys. Its true that the 17-55 IS will be a big chunk, its almost the same price as the 30D itself. Im not going to get the kit, simply because of the 17-55 IS that i will be getting. It covers almost the same focal range as the kit, it also has a bigger apeture and the IS. I usually dont carry my tripod with me.