Trying to cuts costs

[jvgig]

I have determined that I need a new camera ASAP, so I am trying to find some ways so that the initial cost is not so high. The current problem is that I am going on a few trips this summer which could really benefit from the whole focal length range. I am planning on the 40D ($940) + battery grip (180+50) due to its fast continuous shooting and because I am really into macro photography so that 60mm 5x lens really catches my eye (the rebate helps as well). So now I need to try to minimize my lens costs while still retaining quality.

Canon 70-200 f4-$600
OR
sigma 70-200 f2.8 -$800

I would really like the canon f2.8, but I do not think I will be able to swing the cost this year. How much extra practical light will I gain with the 2.8 over the 4.

EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS -$1000
OR
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II -$400

Obviously the IS is a nice feature and the extra 5mm certainly wouldn't hurt, but the $600 savings is a lot and would allow for the purchase of another lens or a ton of accessories.

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f3.5-4.5 -$690
OR
Tokina AT-X 116 PRO DX (11-16 mm f2.8) -$570

This would probably be the first thing I cut, just due to having to carry everything around in the summer in Europe and due to its more limited use.


All Canon rig-3500+ (C everything) (too expensive)
Other brand lenses-3000 (body, grip, battery, S tele, T normal, T wide)
cheapest-2300 (body, grip, battery, C tele, T normal, no wide)

Obviously, the least expensive the better, but I do not want to regret my purchase 3 months from now and end up taking a few hundred loss to upgrade. Due to the weight, I will not be carrying around a tripod while touring.

Thanks for the advice

 

[Big Mike]

First of all, F2.8 is one full stop faster than F4. So instead of shooting at 1/125, you could shoot at 1/250. That might meant the difference between a sharp shot and a blurry shot...especially at the long end of the range.

That being said, the 40D is very good at higher ISO settings, so you could just bump up the ISO one stop to make up the difference in shutter speed (but not DOF). For vacation / travel, photography, I would probably lean toward the 70-200 F4 L. Maybe the IS version if you can swing it.
One thing to keep in mind is that the 70-200 F2.8 lenses (Canon or Sigma) are quite large and very heavy....not so good for travel.

I have the Tamron 17-50 F2.8...mostly because I couldn't afford the Canon 17-55 F2.8 IS. I've heard so many great things about it though...so I'll probably be upgrading to it at some time though. The Tamron is pretty good though, especially at that price.
Actually, when travelling I would be very tempted to leave the Tamron at home and use my Canon 17-85 F4-5.6 IS. The max aperture is obviously not as large, but the range is great and having IS is wonderful.
It really comes down to what you are shooting. If you are shooting moving subjects in lower light, then get the large aperture. If not, then maybe go for the IS instead.

I wouldn't cut the wide angle. That is my favorite type of lens for travel, landscape etc. I have the Canon 10-22mm and it's a fantastic lens. Many people are opting for the Sigma 10-20mm because it's also pretty good and somewhat cheaper.

Don't forget to factor in memory cards, batteries a good bag, a polarizer etc.