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.