Camera set up advise please

[Mystwalker]

Currently I use 30D with 17-40 and 70-200. Basically take pictures of daughter doing goofy things.

Last weekend, we went to zoo where the 17-40 was perfect.

I would have liked to take more pictures of animals using 70-200, but lens swapping was a huge pain. And there was a healthy breeze so was paranoid about getting sand/dust into camera.

Would you use two cameras in this situation or just swap lens continuously? Maybe an XT or XTi?

Was saving for better tripod - my current WalMart model makes me nervous when I have the 70-200 mounted.

 

[Viperjet]

Well, if you have the money, I'd go with an XTi. Or you could get a lens that is like a 17-200, or something like that. It might be a little more expensive, but it would eliminate even switching cameras.

 

[Big Mike]

When I'm shooting a wedding, I have two cameras, so that I have both my top lenses at the ready. For a trip to the zoo, I would probably just take one body and swap the lenses. Dust is going to get in anyway, so just be careful and clean the sensor when it needs it.

If you do want a backup/2nd body...make sure you hold one first. Those Rebels are smaller than your 30D and the lay out it different. It will work just fine, but it might be a pain when you pick up the 2nd body and the controls and layout are different from what you are used to. An alternative would be another 30D or even a 20D.

 

[nicfargo]

If you already have a 30D, I'd stick in the 'D' line for a second camera. I have a 30D and a 5D. I picked up an XT (or XTi, can't remember) and it was a totally different camera. Honestly, if it didn't say Canon on the front, I would have thought it was a different brand entirely...it's that different. Go check one out.

 

[Mystwalker]

Is there a 17-200 (18-200?) compatible with Canon?

When shopping for cameras, I had a Nikon one on list.

Original reason I went with 30D instead of xti or d40x is that 30D felt more substantial. Funny that I'm looking for a used one now. Time to surf some auction sites.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

Go with the tripod, Seriously think how much you'll actually use that 2nd body. Probably wouldn't justify the cost.

 

[Big Mike]

Is there a 17-200 (18-200?) compatible with Canon?

There are, see HERE, but you would be sadly disappointed with them, in comparison to the great lenses you have now.

If you are willing to give up some image quality for convenience, there are plenty of 'super zoom' options.

 

[lifeafter2am]

Unless you are doing something where you have to have that second lens RIGHT NOW, then just switch lenses. You can't baby your sensor from dust and stuff forever.

 

[timyuan]

same thing to me. 17-40 to 70-200 , 70-200 to 17-40, painful....

 

[jwiebe]

If you are staying with a crop camera then the 17-55 EFS IS lens gives you a bit more range than you currently have, and L quality glass. I have a 17-55 and love it I also have a 70-200IS so I feel your pain. I often take the photo with the 17-55 and crop later. The quality is that good. Someday I hope to get a 24-1-5 for that mid range, but for now things are do-able.

 

[Big Mike]

The EF-S 17-55 F2.8 IS...certainly is a great lens, no argument there. It's rather pricey but you get what you pay for. It's only 15mm longer than the 17-40mm though...so I'm not sure it would suit the needs of the OP. The wide aperture and IS would be a great addition though.

The 17-85mm IS, might be an option (although still redundant with the 17-40mm). It's not L quality, but it's still pretty good. I love the range of it, and the IS is great. Unfortunately, the max aperture isn't very big.