Digital SLR Cameras - Recommendations

[CorvallisBMW]

I agree, the 18-55 is a good starter lens. From then you might want to try 50mm prime f/1.4 (or the cheaper f/1.8 and just replace it when it breaks)

http://photo.net/equipment/canon/ef50/

http://photo.net/equipment/canon/ef50/

The next lens would then be up to you, do you want a wide or zoom ? The 7-200L f/2.8 is a nice zoom lens but it's expensive, another version is the F4 version.

http://photo.net/equipment/canon/70-200

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/70-200is.shtml

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0608/06082414canon70-200f4lens.asp

IS lenses help you take sharper pictures w/o a mono/tripod.
A good replacement for the kit lens is something like 28-70 or the 24-70

http://photo.net/equipment/canon/28-70

http://www.fredmiranda.com/24-70/

I suggest you go to a local dealer and try different bodys and lenses foryourself, they will let you do that. You could probably ask them if they rent the lenses out so you could that way play with different lenses w/o shelling out big bucks for them right away.

my 2 cents.

L series lenses are professional quality lenses for professionals/serious amateurs. Somehow I doubt someone who is just buying their first DSLR is going to want to go throw down $1500+ on a pro lens. Stick with a more basic lens and you will be just fine. It takes skill and practice to really extract out of the L series lenses what they're designed for. To go spend that much money on an L series lens would be a complete waste of money IMO. The only one I would really recommend for your skill/involvement level is the 70-200 f/4 L, It's relatively inexpensive and very high quality.

[Digitalwave]

I am seriously looking at getting the 70-200 F/4 L with a 1.4X teleconverter. Do you recommend the Sigma over the L? why?

I bought the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 simply because I can't live with f/4. f/2.8 is my SLOWEST lens. The difference between the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L and the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX is neglible to me, and I couldn't afford the Canon f/2.8 IS at the time, though I will be buying that sometime in the near future to replace the Sigma. In all honesty, you can't go wrong with any of the lenses, be it the Canon 70-200 f/4, the f/4 IS, the f/2.8, the f/2.8 IS, or the Sigma f/2.8 EX.

[marakka]

School me here TJ...... whats the difference between the IS and the EX? To you I'm sure its night and day but to me all I see is the 70-200m and understand the f/2.8 and f/4 having different depth of field but how do those work together to make a slower lens?

[CorvallisBMW]

There seems to be 2 versions of that lens, one that has macro and can focus down to about 40" and one that doesn't, with a larger minimum focus distance. Do you know of any tradeoffs associated with the Macro lens? it would be nice to have that macro feature, since the prices are nearly equal.

[Jean]

L series lenses are professional quality lenses for professionals/serious amateurs. Somehow I doubt someone who is just buying their first DSLR is going to want to go throw down $1500+ on a pro lens. Stick with a more basic lens and you will be just fine. It takes skill and practice to really extract out of the L series lenses what they're designed for. To go spend that much money on an L series lens would be a complete waste of money IMO. The only one I would really recommend for your skill/involvement level is the 70-200 f/4 L, It's relatively inexpensive and very high quality.

I was only trying to present what's out there, the f/4L can be had for under $600 new, so if someone can afford a 600+ body can probably afford the same for the lens ;)

Anyway, go with kit lens and go from there like everybody else said.

[Digitalwave]

School me here TJ...... whats the difference between the IS and the EX? To you I'm sure its night and day but to me all I see is the 70-200m and understand the f/2.8 and f/4 having different depth of field but how do those work together to make a slower lens?

Slow means that the aperture is smaller (larger numerically). It lets in less light. Less slight = slower shutter speeds. So a lens that is "fast" has a larger aperture (smaller numerically) and therefore, given the exact same shooting situation, like low light indoors, you can get faster shutter speeds. The larger the aperture, the shallower the depth of field as well.

IS = Image Stabilization. EX = Sigma's highest quality lenses, similar to Canons 'L' line of lenses. The Sigma does not have any image stabilization. If you don't understand how IS works, here is a good write up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_stabilization

IS lets you use slower shutter speeds without creating as much camera shake blur, so you can avoid using a tripod in many low light situations.

Corvallis, both the lenses are pretty much the same. The Macro version is the new version and it replaced the non-macro version, so I'd go ahead and buy that.

[CorvallisBMW]

There's a $50 rebate on the Canon 70-200 f/4 L right now. Which puts it at $520, compared to about $900 for the Sigma. I would like to have that 1extra f/stop in the Sigma, but at 3lbs vs 1.5lbs and an extra $400, I have trouble justifying it for my own personal needs.