Jumping Ship

[andy153]

Sorry, As a long term sufferer of Nikon Acquisition Syndrome I must defend your original choice. The D80 is a great camera. However, as a walk about lens I don't think you can beat the 18-200mm VR Nikkor. And why go for a prime lens? Are you always able frame the picture at that distance? Or do you have to crop? Are you sometimes too close? In the old days I was always told the best and cheapest telephoto was two legs. Mind you - I now rely on a very good Sigma 50-500 (my only non Nikon lens) or 80-400 VR Nikkor when the legs give out.

[miketoll]

The only problem with the 28-135 is you lose the wide end due to the crop factor. I have the 17-85 S IS and am very happy with it as long as you remember there is some barrel distortion at the wide end. When you have your new setup you can contemplate taking out a mortgage for the new 800 f5.6 IS Canon have announced will fairly soon be in production! That will sort out your birding pictures!

[Tannin]

You might do better to wait until the new Nkon 500/4 VR is available. Yes, it's disgracefully overpriced but when you consider the cost of swapping systems you might come out about even. (And if Nikon didn't plan it exactly that way when they set the whopping price, then I'll eat my boots.)

But if you go Canon, then I suspect that you will find the 24-105 (or just about any of the alternatives mentioned) too long at the wide end. I have 24-105 and I have to confess that I don't really like it. It's a great lens, but not really suited to a crop camera. On a 5D it would be a different story.

That leaves you with the lack-lustre 17-85 (not especially cheap, bad barrel distortion), the very expensive but superb 17-55 (might be too short for you though), or (maybe this is your best option) the Sigma 17-70. I haven't tried a 17-70 for myself but they are well regarded and quite reasonably priced. I'm a bit tempted to get one myself for those times when I don't want to lug both the 24-105 and the 10-22 around and swap lenses constantly.

[miketoll]

I don't agree the 17-85 is lack lustre at all. It is sharp with good contrast, its one weakness is the barrel distortion which AP described as moderate. I shoot mainly landscape and never notice it at all so unless you shoot architecture or similar I think you would be happy with one. The IS is a boon, I find it easier to shoot sharp low light shots with it than with the 50mm f1.8. Why Canon have never produced a 17-135 like Nikon beats me but apart from the extra length I find the 17-85 a superb general purpose lens.

[sassan]

X or Y brand are choice you make depending on several factors including your passion toward a brand, availability, cost, peer pressure (Yes you heard it right) and many other logical or non logical reasons.

I got into Canon FTb in 1972 when I was a young barely teenager. Went for Nikon F3 because I thought it makes a better me (Photographer) though it was my egos that got most satisfaction out of the change (Soon to find how .... the pros must be when could see what FM2 or FA would offer at much lower cost). With the first digital camera getting out in market I knew what I always wanted so many years of non DSLRs Olympus, Nikon coolpixs, Fuji, then Canons and after getting serious about DSLR, it has always been Canon that made me happy. I have many other camera bodies directly or in vicinity (Child and other family members) and still stick firmly with Canon. I know very well what I will buy next and that is 5D MK II once it is released hopefully early next year.

If you go with canon (Considering you said primary interest is Bird Shooting) I suggest 40D as body, Sigma 50-500 for birds (Though it falls a bit short of Canon L 100-400 that gives you much crisper and color richer image but Sigma is one wonderful lens for the money and the very unique range it offers, not being beaten by anyone in photo industry yet).

But for real life the two lens that by virtue of experience I know are most needed ones (Never off my gear on any shooting situation) are:
- 70-200 L IS F/2.8 and
- 10-22mm None-L None-IS (You really don't need IS for shorter focal lenght lenses and no L is available in this category yet.

Once feel comfortable from the damage if you go in this route, you many want to address low light situations so a
-50mm F/1.8 at about $100 or if you want to spend more for bigger lens, a -80mm F/1.8 both excellent for sport shooting from corner of field if you can get there, then a
- 24-70mm L F/2.8 that is one of the sharpest canons lenses ever made.
Now if you have the budget to get into world of white red collar elegant prime super teles then you have many choices. My suggestion is
- 600mm L IS F/4

You can easily see that either you need to break the bank or you have some special talent with very influential sponsors.

Bottom line:
Body: 40D or 5D (Doesn't take EFs lenses)
Lens: 70-200mm L IS F/2.8
10-22mm EFs
50mm F/1.8
Then build up your gadget as the need may be. Forget about any other third party lenses unless you like to be in buy/sell status just for the sake of it.