[Kombisaurus]

Hey guys,

ok.. here's the deal. I need opinions and advice..

I have AU$2500 all-up to spend on a new DSLR, including lenses and accessories.

I have put in an order for a Canon 350D with 17-55mm kit lens (AU$1469), Canon 50mm f1.8 prime lens (AU$138) and 75-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM lens (AU$789), plus a few bits and pieces like a remote, adding up to about $2500 total.

The camera is not in stock yet (probably another week or two), but although I have placed my order, I can make changes to the order between now and when the camera comes in stock.
I could even cancel the camera and change to a D70 or 20D if I really wanted to (but I'd need some convincing to do that). For me, the 350D has everything I need for a lot less $$$ than a 20D, it addresses the things I don't like about the 300D, and produces better results than the D70 IMHO. This is a very subjective thing, but this post isn't about my camera choice, it is about lenses.

So.. given that I'll stick with the 350D (unless I can be convinced otherwise), I'm interested to hear opinions on getting a long lens with the camera and trying to stick to my budget. I am keeping the 18-55mm kit lens for everyday stuff (at least until I can afford something better), and am also getting a 50mm f1.8 for low-light stuff (unless my long lens blows the budget, in which case I can get the 50mm lens later coz it is dirt cheap).

But it is the long lens that has me over a barrel.
Here are my realistic choices with Canon EF lenses, with pro's and cons:

1) Canon 75-300mm f4-5.6 (non-IS) - cheap at AU$317, but slow and pretty nasty. This would give me heaps of focal length (480mm full-frame equiv) and the price is excellent, but I know I probably wouldn't be satisfied with the results. The biggest "pro" about this lens is that it gives me a 300mm (480mm equiv) zoom to use while I save up for a better lens.

2) Canon 75-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM - at $789 this lens is still cheap compared to any "L" lens, but too expensive to be considered a "temporary" lens like the choice above might be. Basically the same (ordinary) optics as the lens above, but the IS will certainly make up for the slowness of the lens when I don't have a tripod handy. I chose this lens based on the principle that it doesn't matter how good the optics of a lens are, any photo from a 300mm lens can be ruined by camera-shake. I'd rather get a sharp photo through a bad lens than get an shaky blurred one through a good lens.

3) Canon 70-200mm f4 L - This 320mm full-frame equiv lens is $1149 and actually blows my budget, but I can put-off buying the 50mm f1.8 until later to save myself $140, and probably just scrape the rest of the money together. The obvious advantage of this lens is that it's an L-series lens and so has much better optics, plus it is f4 right up to 200mm. There are also a few other things like it is rear-focusing and AF will work properly through a polarising filter. The disadvantage (apart from price) is that it cuts 100mm (160mm full-fram equiv) off the tele-end, and it doesn't have IS, so even though it is faster, camera-shake will be more of an issue. This is annoying, but the "missing" focal length is the big disadvantage to me.

My current digital camera (Olympus C750UZ) has a 38-380mm (35mm equiv) lens, and I also have a 1.7x teleconverter for it.
I often use it right at the tele end of the zoom (380mm), but strangely enough I don't use the teleconverter anywhere near as often as I thought I would. I think this is mainly because it's a PITA to fit - I have to remove filters and screw it on the end of the lens like a big filter, and then I have to remove it if I want to zoom out much (as vignetting becomes visible at about 2/3 focal length). For bird/wildlife photography, the time it takes to take the converter on and off means I miss shots. For landscape photography when I have the time to switch easily, I find I don't need to use it.

So having a single lens that zooms right into a 480mm (equiv) would just be luxurious, but if it only went into 320mm (equiv) then it wouldn't be much different to my current Oly without the converter, and I can live with that.
I guess I could also get a 1.4x teleconvter for the 200mm lens, but from the results I've seen with sample images, it degrades the image quality to be slightly worse than the 75-300mm lenses... and still with no IS.
I know the IS would be useful as I hate it when I lose shots at long focal lengths due to camera shake. But I also know that this whole issue should be less of a problem with a decent DSLR and lens compared to my current Oly, and can be reduced with a monopod or eliminated with a tripod.

Decisions decisions..

$317 for the cheap lens gets me up and running and I won't feel bad about selling the lens later, but what's the point in buying a lens if it is rubbish and I only intend to keep it for a short while?
$789 is too much to "throw away" on a lens I will want to replace in under 12 months, but will it's optical quality be good enough to keep me happy? I've heard mixed reports about this lens ranging from "quite ordinary" to "really good".
$1149 is a lot to spend on a lens if I find it doesn't reach as far as I need it to (and so would still need to buy a longer lens or teleconverter), and it doesn't have IS, but the majority of my shots would probably look best with this lens as it has great optics, and I can take a tripod to most places I photograph - I'm just currently too lazy not to. I could probably just keep an "emergency" tripod permanently in the car if necessary, and one of the important accessories I will be getting is a backpack. Plus, this is where having an 8mp camera gives me the luxury to crop the image down to 4mp if I have to and basically produce the equivalent of a 1.5x teleconverter. My Oly is proof that a 4mp image still looks great at 8x10", and 4mp of DSLR image will kick butt over 4mp of Oly image as far as noise, colour and sharpness goes.

I guess if my intention is to start building a good collection of lenses, then I should get the 70-200mm L-series lens. But I do this stuff for fun, not for a living. The only person I have to please is myself (and maybe my family). I'm sure that any of these lenses will look immesurably better than my current Oly, and I don't want to throw money away if the non-L lens will look 99.9999% as good.
If I get the 70-200 (and don't get the 50mm f1.8 for now), then I still end up $200 over-budget (with the same accessories), and don't get the lovely fast prime with the camera. I can stretch to that.. just.. but even the $2500 budget is more than I originally wanted to spend!

Advice?
Opinions?
Other options?

I haven't looked too closely at lenses from other manufacturers, but I'm happy to consider them if their quality is better than the cheap 75-300mm canon lens (and assume they'd probably be a bit cheaper).

Thanks
Adrian

ps: Ooops, I noticed after clicking "submit" that I wrote "D350" in the subject instead of "350D". It seems once a thread is created, I can't delete or rename it?