Quote (jinkiro @ Fri, Mar 6 2009, 12:51am)
I've compared the specs and prefer 40d. However, I am also interested in getting the 18-200mm lens which in shops, only comes along with 50d. 50d is alittle over budegt for me. If buying a 40d body and a 18-200mm separately definitely doesn't sound cost efficient as well. Some shops offer the dual lens kit, but am not really in favour of carrying 2 lenses around if you have the option of having 1 lens with the same focal length.
I am also thinking of getting a wide angle. Have tried a tokina canon mount 11-16mm f2.8. Loved it. Looks great even on crop. Would like to know if anyone has used canon 10-22mm or the tokina 11-17mm fisheye? Are you able to see the fisheye effects on crop?
Good choice in getting the 40D over the 50D. As you said yourself, the image quality of the 40D is marginally better and it costs less, so that sort of makes it a no brainer.
As for the lens, I don't suggest you get the 18-200mm since reviews on resolution, distortion, aberrations, etc. are pretty unacceptable for a $650 lens. If you put bad glass in front of it, you negate the DSLR's advantage of being able to resolve fine details. If having a single superzoom lens that is convenient to use is something vital to you, I suggest you get one of the cheaper 3rd party alternatives since you'll be paying far less for about the same performance.
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/400-canon_18200_3556is?start=1 [Review of the 18-200mm]
As for wide angles, the Sigma 10-20mm is widely regarded as the best value (provided you can get a good copy). The Canon 10-22mm has better color reproduction but costs quite a bit more. One thing to note when it comes to ultra-wides is that you'll likely be stopping down to f/8 or so anyways for landscapes and such so the maximum aperture isn't as big of a consideration. From what I remember, the Tokina costs quite a lot but is built like a tank.