In article ,
writes
Thanks to all for your comments. I suffer from a very common problem:
not being able to afford the gear I really want. And I'm trying to
figure out where to get the best bang for the buck. I've been a
life-long birder and have taken many trips to the Central and South
American tropics to see them. I've never attempted to photograph them
because the gear required for the kind of images I'd want is too heavy
to lug around. And expensive. But now I'm planning a birding trip to
Africa for next year and since I doubt I'll ever get there again, I'm
rethinking my choice of a camera to carry. I know I don't want to buy
or lug a 600mm lens and I'm not sure I even want to carry a camera
that weighs 3 lbs. So I've ruled out the long premium lenses, leaving
me with choices about normal or short telephotos. I'm not going to try
bird photos per se. Just want excellent images with some ability to
enlarge certain photos with good resolution. I'm used to the
resolution from my MF camera, so I already figure I'm going to
compromise on print detail. I'm considering buying a new/used Canon
10D or Nikon D70 but I'm not sure about the lens. A premium prime lens
has its appeal since I wouldn't be bothered changing lenses, and
that's a very important feature for my style of thrashing through the
puckerbrush. I don't want to lug a lot of gear and I don't want to be
changing lenses. Then there's the 28-70 zoom. Canon's and Nikon's are
both quite good apparently, but they're also expensive and fairly
heavy. Are they better (for my purposes) than their 80mm primes? All
subjective, I know. Bottom line is that the best gear in the world
isn't worth much if I can't afford it or if it's so awkward that I
wouldn't tote it with me. Again, thanks for all your comments. And I
know this can't be answered by anyone but me.

From what you say, consider the Canon 28-135 IS USM - assuming you
settle on the 10D of course. I use one with my 10D (and my 1n); it is an
ideal single lens - for me - for use with the 1n. With the 10D it lacks
at the wide end, but if birds are you thing you should find the
normal-to-tele quite useful. The IS will also help you a lot in dim
light as well, though not of course if the bird moves. Still think you
would be restricting yourself a lot without a 20-35 for landscapes
though.

For a once-in-a-lifetime trip and a serious passion, I would though look
to beg, borrow or otherwise acquire a longer lens. I know you said you
ruled it out, but... A 70-200L IS + 2x TC would be good, or a 100-400L
IS (much cheaper but lacking the wide aperture of the 70-200 used
alone). Buy a good second hand one and resell it on eBay when you get
back if you must....

David
--
David Littlewood