[nic mullin]

Just looking to draw upon your collective knowlede about lenses. In the near future I'm going to be investing in a DSLR, mostly for pics of climbing and bouldering. I don't any particular allegiances at present, but was thinking along the lines of an EOS 40D, D70 or similar (so crop-sensor) depending on what deals I can find.

I've got a compact that I'm pretty happy with for carrying on routes etc, so the SLR will mostly be used for taking photos of bouldering or people on routes from the ground/top of the crag/ab rope, meaning weight isn't much of an issue. 

From the settings use most on my compact I'm after something wide and fast for bouldering and something with the ability to go long(er) but aperture not so much of an issue for routes. Landscapes/nature and general happy-snapping also figure in my choice, but aren't my top priority.

My options look like:

Body only with one fast, wideish zoom (one of the 17-55ish constant f/2.8 types) for bouldering/walkabout etc. and a cheaper, slower tele (70-200 ish) for routes, nature etc. The problem with this is that wide, fast zooms cost loads and don't seem to come up second hand much.

Body (with or without kit lens), a fast, wide prime or two and similar tele to above. Cheaper, but if I don't get the kit I suspect I'll be missing shots to change lenses. If I do get the kit I'll have less to spend on fast primes, but might be able to ditch the tele.

So, does that lot sound realistic? When you're taking the kind of pictures I mention, what focal lengths do you use most, and is a kit lens worth getting?
 
Thanks in advance.

[dave]

If you're going fast and wide with nikon primes then the only sub-££££ option is the 20mm f/2.8, a good lens by all accounts but not massivley wide on a crop sensor. however its still fairly wide. has all the advantages of a prime. or for a bit longer go the 24mm f/2.8, again good, cheaper still, and equivalent to a 35mm on 35mm.

Other than that you could look at the zooms like the 18-70mm, which are only half a stop slower than 2.8 at the widest end, cheap, good, and readily available.

[SA Chris]

You don't need to rush into getting it all at once. I would hold back and get a decent slower tele once you have a bit more cash rather than rushing into getting one immediately.

[dave]

The other thing to consider is if you end up with a body like the D70 where the slowest ISO is still 200 is if you actually need an expensive fast wide zoom. if the light is so low that you'll need f/2.8 at 18mm and ISO200 to handhold then you'll have a hard time persuading a climber to hold still for 1/15th of a second even if you can hold the camera still. you might be better putting that cash towards a fast telephoto (you'll appreciate/need f/2.8 more on a long lens) or a flash. plus on digital if you need to ramp up the ISO a bit its generalyl to no great detriment of the image quality.

[Mr Cat]

I've got a canon 400d with a sigma 30mm f1.4 - and that;'s a beautiful lens.... also got a tamrom f2.8 28-75mm which is also good while I've got a cheap canon 70-300mm for closeup stuff...

as for the camera's themselves - there isn't a great deal of difference between the different models (despite what some people will say) - just go and and a try of what you like best

[nic mullin]

Cheers for the knowledge guys. I think that this has pretty much highlighted that I'm as good at reading spec sheets as the next man, but don't have enough experience to go on. So, I've just bought a 40D with a kit lens so I can get a feel and save some pennies in the meantime.