I just checked B&H - they want $775 for the 350XT with 18-55 in black or silver for the body. $685 for body alone.
http://www.bhphotovideo. And it just so happens I was at Costco earlier today and the price there was $799 for kit in only silver evidently. Although you will pay $25 more plus tax at Costco - I would say it's well worth it to have their liberal refund policy - near unlimited duration if you keep your receipt and do it politely. IE, it is not a 30 or 60 day thing - it is unlimited. I returned a $2500 HD TV after 16 months because it had been on the blink since it was 6 months old. It took me several months to diagnose it - then decide to return it - then select a replacement HDTV. No hassels - I had a receipt - and they were 1st rate about taking care of my return.
Normally at 6 months I would have been tatooed with the bad HDTV and out 2500 - yeah I would have been ticked off. But in this case I was extremely happy with the recourse afforded me.
As for lense - the reviews on these lense are listed here -
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_18125_3556/index.htm
And the summary "verdict" of the review states:
photoZONE said:
Verdict
The Sigma AF 18-125mm f/3.5-5.6 DC is naturally a compromise but the package is a bit more sound compared to its more ambitious sister lens - the AF 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC. Sigma seems to have followed a quite interesting design approach - ignoring distortions and focus on the rest and this works out pretty well. The lens is very sharp specifically around the wide end of the zoom range but the tele settings aren´t bad either. CAs are about average and vignetting could be a little better at wide-open aperture. Nonetheless these are acceptable compromises for an extremely compact 7x zoom. Unfortunately the AF performance of the lens isn't quite as promising. On the EOS 350D AF accuracy is totally unacceptable when using a focal length below 50mm - I haven't really experienced another lens (besides the 18-200mm) which performs as bad in this respect. Trusting the camera is no good idea here. I used the lens extensively during a recent vacation and after a couple of days I gave up and disabled AF for wide angle shots (Note: normally I'm using the central AF point only for better accuracy ...).
As such - I must echo my experience with a non-Canon zoom I tried a few months ago. Admittedly, it was not a Sigma - it was a Tamaron 18-200. And this lense also had a strange habit of completly missing the focus. I was totally perplexed over the higher than normal (compared to Canon lenses) failure - as I became very careful and alert to focusing performance and technique on my part. Later - I researched the photo forums and found many others who complained of the same problem with non-Canon lenses. No one had a reliable or quantifiable explanation. However, what seemed to make some sense was that these non-Canon lenses had to be reverse engineered to operate as a Canon lense. I've seen articles where (naturally) Canon execs explain that they do not share the operating specifications for lenses so 3rd party makers can compete. So Sigma, Tamron and everyone else has to make educated guesses at how to design the interface. You would think it should be elementary - but then - it does not seem to work right for everyone. Another thing I saw was how some folks had to send their Sigma or Tamrons back to the manufacturer to get new IC programming - as the missed focus problems were extremem for these users.
Exceptions are bound to exist.... good and bad. I had a bad expoerience and am interested in mostly Canon made lenses - in spite of the extra expense. No doubt about it - Sigma and Tamron make SUPER lenses that do not exit in the Canon line up. Having an 18-125 or the even more radical 18-200 is not available from Canon. But - for me - it has to work properly in order to be really competitive.
You know - if you're going to do a special trip to Alaska - or if you're taking pictures of ANYTHING that is special - then you owe it to yourself to get the best and most reoliable you can comfortably afford. You can get the inexopensive kit lense covering 18-55. And add the lenses I was talking about - the 28-105 f3.5-4.5 at $230 from B&H. Unfortunately - with this combination you have an overlap in focal ranges from 28-55. I suspect you might end up using the better 28-105 most of the time. It's effective converted range is about 45mm to 168mm (the size of the DSLR sensor is undersized causing all lenses to behave with a 1.6x conversion against their full frame design focal length. IE... a 100mm lense behaves like a 160mm lense. SO - as I was saying - even with the overlap = and in effect the KIT lense extends your coverage down to 18mm - or a converted effective focal length of 28.8mm... you will need it. As having a 28-105 is like having a normal perspective view extending through mild telephoto of 3 power. The 18-55 gives you a 28.8 through 87.5mm... which is just shy of a 3x zoom range - and acually covers a nice range - if not an unaccepably limited range.
You know you can argue this til the cows come home. Any way you slice it - you're gonna have lots of great memories to show for your trip with a decent camera and possibly a backup plan. IE - carrry in your bag spare batteries, an extra memory card, and possibly a cheapie 2nd camera in case the primary fails. Or be ready to buy something on the road if the primary fails. I always have a backup camera - and extra batteries and memory.
AND - please ensure you do not buy the 28-105 f4-5.6 lense at $120... it is a Coke bottle lense and gets horrible test reviews. Get the 28-105 f3.5-4.5 for $230.
And - alternatively ... for a super value in a long zoom lense ... get what I have for tele-zoom - a Canon 70-300 f4-5.6 Image Stabilized zoom. the effective converted focal range is 112-480mm. Plus the image stibilization design is stated as 3rd generation - it just came out late last year. The optics are superb - but the construction are comsumer grade - as opposed to the heavier professional grade designs. But at $534$ with a $25 rebate applied - it is a lot of glass for the money. Not the lightest, nor the smallest - but it quaifies as the most powerful Canon zoom of its' type for the money. The alternative to this is the white barreled 70-200 f4 "L" zoom. A true professional grade zoom supposedly. It does not possess the image stabilization mechanism - nor does it reach out to 300mm... but it is weather sealed and is considered very very well by most enthusiasts. This "L" zoom is actually quite affordable at $544 after a $40 rebate is applied.
Yeah....
Buying a 350XT
with 18-55 kit lense is $799 from Costco ... less $100 for the rebate = $700. Adding a 28-105 makes it $930. Add $150 for 2 spare batteries, good 2nd tier UV filters and a 1 gig CF card or two off eBay and you're all done at $
1080. Substitute a 70-300 IS f4-5.6 zoom like mine and you'll be in it for about $
1385. Add another $10 and you can have the 70-200 f4 "L" pro lense. Or drop down to a B&H bought 350XT
body alone at $685 with a sigma 18-125 for $280, plus $125 for filter, batteries and memory and you're sitting at $
990 after adjustment for $100 rebate. One lense in that Sigma setup there versus 2 with the Canon lens proposals I made - plus buying the body from B&H offers you a black body whereas Costco seems to not have black bodies available. I happen to prefer black over silver. But then - the Costco purchase of the DSLR KIT allows for the extraordinary refund option. However - You'll add tax and shipping if applicable for ALL of my examples above.
I feel like a camera sales person all of a suddden. But believe it or not - it was entertaining to examine all this. Only a propeller head like me could admit that!
So - good luck no matter how you go at this! Please forgive me for my obvious bias in this matter!
Remember - Canon has 60% of world wide DSLR market share. All the other competitors combined do not match Canon's dominance. And that is because of their technical superiority in camera bodies and lens designs. Why go non-Canon for the glass if you don't have to? However, if you have to - then the 3rd parties make lenses that Canon simply does NOT make! They have unique merit as well.
He is just too cute...shameless bump....
i can use my sigma film convert for some mid angle stuff but if it's not great at 18 i'd need something for that range. i still think the range is worth it though since it would be easier to change a lens for the occasional wider angle and have something for 90% of what i would like to take. i hated having to change lens with my 28-80 film and 100-300 film...plus the added dust digital factor now.. am i thinking right or am i crazy?
