Canon 400d with EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8? or 40d enthusiast pack.

[furious]

Like it's even possible to notice.


I will say one thing about Tokina though: Worst chromatic abberation and best build quality. That's what they're famous for. Sigma, good build quality and good optical quality lenses. Tamron's lenses are usually sharp (and sometimes sharper than Canon and Nikon equivalents), but they feel the cheapest. For many people, it doesn't matter. Plastic lenses will last as long as metal lenses under normal use by most people. Plastics are quite strong and durable nowadays.

I realise it is the person behind the camera that makes all the difference. It is the quality problems I am worried about. And rightly so. I work hard for my money I want to get the best value for it. If you are paying $500 for an item and you have a choice of two items one with a 10% chance of failure and the other with a 25% chance of failure which would you chose?

 

[Zeke]

There are cheap Tamrons and there are nice ones. I've been very impressed with the nicer of Tamron lenses. The 28-75 2.8 was awesome and made me get the 17-50 when it came out and I've not been dissappointed. If you're just getting into slr photography there's absolutely no reason not to get one. Even if you happen to grow out of it (I haven't and I consider myself a pretty serious amateur) they hold resale value well. There's no reason for you to drop 3x the money on the Canon unless you just want the Canon name because the only real benefit is the USM.

 

[OreoCookie]

I realise it is the person behind the camera that makes all the difference. It is the quality problems I am worried about. And rightly so. I work hard for my money I want to get the best value for it. If you are paying $500 for an item and you have a choice of two items one with a 10% chance of failure and the other with a 25% chance of failure which would you chose?

Huh, where did you take those numbers from? Probably not from experience

I've had a Tokina lens crash on the street in excess of 15 mph, the body (Nikon F80) was a goner, the lens worked just fine (the UV filter was cracked, though) -- their lenses are all full-metal and built like tanks. My cousin, a professional photographer, uses Canon, Sigma and Tokina lenses. If you are concerned about built quality, then either Tokina or more expensive Sigma lenses will be just fine. Tamron aims at a different price point, I think, but also offers quality lenses. I've never had any lens fail on me, though, neither original nor third-party.

Third-party lenses definitely have better value, for instance I expect the full-metal Tokina zoom to be a lot more durable than the (quality) plastics Canon original -- at half the price. In my book, the best value is clearly among the third-party lenses. Don't just pay twice as much for a `Canon' badge (or in my case, Nikon).

 

[furious]

Huh, where did you take those numbers from? Probably not from experience

Have you heard of a hypothetical.

 

[OreoCookie]

Have you heard of a hypothetical.

Yes, it's not a good source.

 

[furious]

Yes, it's not a good source.

WTF

 

[OreoCookie]

WTF

Relax, I was merely being humorous.

 

[colinmack]

Sounds like you may have already made your decision, but as a general rule you will *always* get more bang for your buck from investing in glass as opposed to investing in bodies.

Sensors will change over time, features will improve, bodies end up being replaced...but glass is an investment you keep over multiple bodies for a longer period of time, not to mention that it has a more visible impact on the final result - and it's all about the pictures, right? ;-)

If it was me I'm not sure I'd go with either of the packages you suggested, the 17-55 is great optically, but it's a whole lotta cash for a non-L build lens (you also can't take it with you if you go back and forth with film bodies, or ever decide to upgrade to full frame, but then you could always sell it). As for the 17-85, it's a convenient walkaround range, but it certainly doesn't get stellar reviews for it's optics.

Depending on the quality you're expecting, maybe get one of the new 18-55/55-200 IS kits, or get a 17-40L and 50mm 1.8 and save up for a 70-200L...my 2 cents.

(I've had the 350D, 400D, 30D, 5D, as well as the Nikon D50...as someone else mentioned, if I didn't have an investment in Canon, I would certainly be looking harder at Nikon right now as a first-time buyer)