After a recent random trip to Pensthorpe I got the following shot which has sparked off my interest in talking photos all over again and I decided it's almost birthday time; so I'm thinking of treating myself photographically.

I'm currently torn; I want to get more into my photography. Not being a student anymore has meant I don't have access to expensive lenses and bits via Uni, and I've been coping with my Canon 350D for a couple years with a few old EF lenses borrowed from various sources here and there.

With the sun out and summer in bloom I've been playing a lot more and really getting back into it. Now to start my foray into spending spare money on photography I'm deciding if my Birthday present should be a shiney new 40D with a kit lens (or body with my current lenses) and then save for some better ones at a later date. Or if I should stick with the 350D and look for a cheap, decent, lens or perhaps a 2nd hand 'L' zoom?

I'm not really that interested in the MP difference. But the higher ISO, fps and general improvements of the 40D are very welcome - a majority of my shots are taken indoors and low-light. But that would also point me to getting a decent, fast, lens.

A 40D (new) would be slightly over my budget, but I can offset that a little by selling the 350 on, whereas a fast lens would likely be just as much without me being able to recoup some cost by selling a body (unless it's mine :thumbdwn: ).

So what do people think. Is it the Photographer, the lens or the camera that makes good photos? And seeing as I can only change two of the three - which would make the most difference?

IMO id go with the lens as thats what really makes the difference then if your needing rather then wanting the extra features of the 40D then upgrade

I Agree, glass glass glass.

Listen to the pro above

Decent glass is the best way. It's also the best way to learn how to become a better photographer because (a) you can no longer blame bad glass for it and ( because it will work much better, you can see much more the effect of settings will have. There's no "confusion" which you get with poor glass - the photo you get will be a perfect representation of the settings you've applied on the body. At least, that's the case in my very limited experience

edit: also, there's absolutely nothing wrong with getting good quality glass second hand. Unless it's been used by pros in the media (where they get bashed around a lot), private users cherish their glass as much as we do with our pristine cars. And the prices of second hand can be very very attractive, especially for the high end stuff where the same percentage of depreciation is a lot more saving in real money.

Sites you may want to have a look at for second hand are:

mpbphotographic.co.uk - Buy Used Canon & Nikon Digital SLR Cameras, Lenses, Accessories & More

Aperture Photographic Tel. 020 7242 8681

https://secure.ffordes.com/index.htm

One of the UK's Best Stocked Dealers, Part Exchange Welcome, Collection Service Available

These guys are proper photography dealers and their description of second hand is very conservative. I've bought a lens or two from them above and have been very impressed. You also get great customer service

personally im aiming for the canon 100m in the future but if you want to spend less the tamron 9mm macro gets good reviews too

Spend on the glass, decide on the reach you need, the type of photography you pursue and go from there. Most lenses are an upgrade from the 18-55 kit lens. The 350D is a very capable body and will last you a while longer yet

I would personally look at the Sigma range right now, you don't need the IS unless you are going long range and you certainly don't need the weather sealing of the 'L' series.

The 350D is based on a crop sensor and utilises the centre of the lens element, the 'L' series are sharper throughout the entire element, something you simply won't see on the 350D. Add to the above the savings on non-L's and you are on a winner. You could have the 10-22, 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8, 70-300, and a couple of TC's for the price of an 85 f/1.2 ......

I would recommend that you try and get hold of a Canon 50mm f/1.8 prime lens for around £60 new.

This lens will give you much better image quality than the kit lens and will not break the bank. It also lets in around 400+% more light than the kit lens at similar focal length.

This is a fixed focal length and it will encourage you to think about composition more than when using a zoom.

There are limitations with the focal legth as 50mm is a little long on a x1.6 crop camera like the 350d.

If you want something a little wider, then the Canon 35mm f/2 is a good buy albeit a little more expensive.

If zoom is your thing then something like the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 is highly regarded @ around £220 but if you want to push the boat there's the excellent Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS (image stabilised) lens at around £600

Good luck with your decision

Yeah, I've been looking at the Tamron quite a bit. Might go for that with a UV and Polarizer and find a cheap remote shutter thingy and start from there. Get some landscape/outdoor stuff going before summer leaves us.

Cheers all; any more recommendations are welcome. I change my mind more than a woman!