I have finally recouped my funds from my skiing accident last year to the point where I can purchase a camera setup, but I am finding it difficult to make the decisions regarding lenses. With a max budget of $2500 and no current equipment to be carried over, I cannot find a way to get more than 2 lenses. Canon 40D- refurb $670 430EXII flash- $240 8gb CF Sandisk III- $45 Good enough for 6fps sports shooting? Manfrotto tripod with ball head- $270 remote shutter button -$40 Throw in a UV filter- $50 Total w/o lens 1300 That leaves another $1200 for lenses. My current advanced P&S has an aperture range of 2.4-3.5 from 28-140mm(equiv). I know that I take 20% of my images with an aperture of 2.8 or larger and that 77% of my images are taken at 3.5 or larger. With that in mind, I do not see how I would end up satisfied with my purchase with an f3.5-5.6 lens. Firstly, I love macro photography, so I am nearly sold on the Canon 100mm macro lens and have intentions of purchasing the 65mm 5:1 lens within the next year (the only reason that i am not getting it now, is because of its lighting requirements at higher magnification). $455 The other things I shoot include landscapes, architecture, sports, art work, and a little bit of everything in between. This is where my dilemma is. Landscapes do well with wider lenses, art needs to be as telephoto as the room will allow, sports require telephoto and a large aperature, and the everything else needs something in between. Obviously I cannot afford all of those lenses now, or likely even within the next year, two, or even three. (I have been saving for 2 years to aquire the funds for this purchase.) I have looked at both prime and zoom lenses. In the wide range, prime lenses are very expensive ($1000+) considering I am on a crop sensor. I do a lot of my shooting hand held or by propping my camera against something, even though I currently own a, albeit flimsy (but suitable for a P&S), tripod. That leaves me with the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 lens at $570. This poses a problem as my focal length range would then be 17.6-25.6 and 160 and I only have another $200. A 2.8 70-200 lens w/ 1.4x seems to be the best option for a sports/general telephoto lens; althout I am considering the f4 as it would not be much different than my current camera. This will not be included in this purchase as it would severly limit my useful focal lengths. For now I will be using the 100mm as a sports lens as it is longer and faster than my current setup, so I will be happy at least for a little while. In the middle focal lenth range prime lenses are more reasonable, 50 1.4 (equiv 80mm) for $350, but I have not seen many good reviews for the 35 which would give me the 50mm. 2.8 zoom lenses all hover around $1000 which would put me a few hundred over my budget. My current focal length usage is heavy around (equiv) 28mm, 50mm, 140mm, and cropped 140 wishing it was longer. Most of my artwork is shot around 50mm due to the size of the room. Any suggestions on how to make this work? Thanks for the help.