Attached Link: Sigma lens kit

I have a 40D and I like it.
I also use Sigma lenses and I like them.

I also visited your gallery, and liked it.

BUT: with the 70-300 you won't be able to make the macros you make now.

For things like that, you'd need a 1:1 lens like the Sigma 50, 105 or 150mm, all three f:2.8.

Gor wildlife at further distances, a larger tele is needed, but a 300, or 480 (multiply with 1.6) is as good as impossible to use handheld in real-life situations. So you'll need a tripod.

etc etc...

Hehe - that pretty much sums up what i would have said.  The shift from prosumer/compact to dslr cuts your macro ability unless you but a dedicated macro lens (and you have to go prime - i havent heard of a zoom macro that is any good - my 70-200 2.8 claims "macro" on the side, but my 105mm beats it hands down). 

The other thing is that in some situations your panosonic is going to outperform even a macro lens on a dslr just by the fact that the focus distance is insanely smaller and the resulting macro is often better.  I wouldnt swear by it, but it also seems that with a fixed lens prosumer cam you can get a better DOF for full bodied insect shots, i look at your macros and think it would be nearly impossible to get such DOF with my 105mm.

My advice would be to consider that you will just buy a dedicated macro lens and a telephoto zoom lens, and skip the wide angle for now. That is if you are plannign on following your shooting style i see in your gallery now - maybe just get the kit lens (18-55mm) -it is very cheap and decent enough as lenses go/for the price (in my experience of it - it is a very debatable subject tho) - just so you can shoot wide angle should the urge come over you.  I have the 105mm sigma macro lens and would recommend it, but thinking of it, you might actually like the 50mm macro as it would be closer to the shots you would get out of the prosumer and acts more like it in terms of DOF and use (working distance is shorter than the longer focal length lenses) - plus a 50mm 2.8 is always a nice bonus in any kit bag for use in portraits etc.

Agree with Tan and Inshaala on pretty well all counts;

1. You can not go wrong with the 40D
2. The Sigma macro lenses ( as well as the 10-20mm) are fine lenses
3. The "zoom" macros...aren't really macros...
4. You will not be able to get the dof you currently get with your panasonic with the DSLR macro lenses...In many cases the consumer point and shoots will outperform the DSLR's in macro work....especially in terms of $ spent!

Remember that DSLR's are a money pit....you need to add lenses, filters, bag, flash, more lenses, RAW software, tripod, more lenses, possible computer upgrades to handle huge RAW files...oh, did I mention more lenses?...LOL!

It really comes down to what you plan on doing with the DSLR....What do you want to do that your Panasonic can't do?.....if you just want to do macros, it may not be the best move....if you want the ultimate in flexibility in terms of quality and artistic ability and the ability to exert maximum control over your exposures, then it is the way to go.

A final comment on lenses...buy the best quality glass you can....your DSLR will be out of date within two years, but the glass can likely be used for your next body.

Thank you all for the advice. I am upgrading because I really want to be able to capture wildlife, especially birds in detail so I need something that has the ability to get good shots from a distance. I also want the speed to capture them in motion. I still want to be able to do my insect macros, so I will definitely pick up a good dedicated macro lens. I am still torn on whether to get the 2 sigmas or the one canon lens.

Further questions:

• Are you happy with how close you can come to wildlife with the camera you have now?

You have a f:3.7 equivalent of a tele that goes to 420mm in film speak , with Image Stabilisation.
To get this for a dslr, you have to spend a lot of money.

The Sigma 70-300 can come even closer (and you have more megapixels, meaning you can crop even more) but it has no image stabilisation, and it needs more light at 300.

• why a kit? Why not a body with what you really want? Just a suggestion (always very difficult to make): why not get a body of a 40D and for example a Sigma 50 or 105 f:2.8 macro lens? And use the panasonic for the moment for tele?
  And then, when the money allows,  get a real tele like, for example, the Canon EF 300mm f:4.0 ?

Yes, a lot of money. But it'll give you what you need, and it has Image Stabilisation.

Sorry, but in my opinion the Sigma zooms in that kit are not a step ahead when you already own the Panasonic. My idea.

My zoom shots always look noisy with the panasonic and they lack detail. Sounds like this may be a problem with the DSLR too. I also have a problem with hot pixels showing up in all of my shots. My camera is also pretty slow to focus in auto focus. I think after reading all of your posts I will either go for the body only or the standard canon kit lens just to have a lens until I can buy better ones. I will be picking up a macro lens right after christmas so I guess I need to start looking into the best one to get. I will pick up a zoom lens a little bit later. My main reason for choosing the canon is that I can continue upgrading the camera and I will have the lenses. I have also seen some spectacular landscapes and wildlife shots on here that were taken with DSLR's and I want that detail and clarity in my shots.

Sorry, but are you talking about the 40D or the 400D (aka digital rebel)?
The 40D will be difficult to upgrade for a rather long time.
The 400D is also very good, and handier to manipulate I guess.

As for the noise: that is as good a certain much lower. And autofocus on the 40D is quite fast and rather accurate. I haven't got any hot pixels on mine but with the soft that comes with it you can locate these and have them cured automatically.

Did you read the reviews on dpreview (I always jjump first to pros and cons). Both the 400D and the 40D are highly recommended.

I have read the reviews on dpreview and a few other places. I want the 40D, because I want the Live view option (which i realize is limited). I really like the Panasonic's live view option with the swivel screen which is similar to what I have now and is great for the type of photography I am in to. From the reviews the Panasonic seems to take longer to auto focus and the photo quality may not be as good (the review was a pre-production model though) If I buy lenses for the 40D they should work if I ever upgrade to another canon, right? Like I said I am pretty ignorant on lenses. This is an overwhelming decision to make.

The live view on the 40D is definitely an advantage when taking macros. 

The real problem comes with lens choice.  
Once you have seen what the camera is capable of capturing you will want that quality in all your images and that is where good quality lenses will start to become a must have.

Good lenses for dslr's are expensive .

It makes sense to buy the best quality you can afford to start with rather than something you will want to upgrade in the near future costing you more money.

My suggestion would be to get a general walkabout lens to start with - one that will always be useful.  My personal choice would be the Canon 17-85 IS . This lens is wide enough to use in landscape photography, good for portraits and general use, has a close focusing range of 4", has image stabilisation for shooting in low light and would form the basic lens of a system  to build upon. There are of course other good lenses in this range and you could consider some of those too, using the Canon as your benchmark to judge if they are better or worse for what you want to do with it.

To get true macros from your new camera you would need a dedicated macro lens and some of those have been mentioned above. Canon, Sigma and Tamron all make good lenses in this class. 

Now comes the expensive one because good quality telephoto lenses cost. To shoot wildlife you will need something around 400mm or more. The one used by many amateur wildlife photographers is the Canon 100 - 400  IS and this should be the benchmark by which you consider other lenses.  There are other good ones, but none are inexpensive  !

Just wanted to let everyone know that I picked up my Canon 40D with kit 28-135mm lens! :biggrin: Can't wait to get outside and try it out!

I will be getting my 28-135 lens on monday and I am very curious how it will be compared to my 18-55 kit lens on my Canon XTi.
  I was going to get the 17-85 but changed my mind at last minute when ordering.
   Will be curious to see what you think about the lens and maybe post a couple pics that you make using it. :)

I accidentally left the camera on last night LOL so as soon as the battery charges I will try snapping a few pics and posting them here.

You can go into the settings menu and set a power save/shut off / stand-by mode. I've got mine set to 2 mins coz I used to leave my Panasonic LMC-FZ5 on all the time and it would get dead, so I learn from that.

About the lens and Wildlife. I believe you should get a Sigma 50 - 500mm. Personally when I try and shoot wildlife (I suck BTW) I find that the Sigma 70 - 300mm that I have right now is pretty useless. It really doesn't reach far enough and if you wanna do a safari it will not (trust me on this) be long enough.

Macro Lens: I suggest getting a Sigma 105mm. It's got a decent angle of view for the cropped censor and it's cheap. If you really wanna spend some money I'd say go for the Canon MP-E 65mm Macro it's got a awesome, fantastic, wonderful 5 times lifesize magnification!!! WOWSERS!!!

OMG yes I saw that canon macro lens in the booklet that came with the camera and I (eventually) have got to have it! I found the auto off setting and turned it on so I wont drain my battery again.

Quote - You can go into the settings menu and set a power save/shut off / stand-by mode. I've got mine set to 2 mins coz I used to leave my Panasonic LMC-FZ5 on all the time and it would get dead, so I learn from that.

About the lens and Wildlife. I believe you should get a Sigma 50 - 500mm. Personally when I try and shoot wildlife (I suck BTW) I find that the Sigma 70 - 300mm that I have right now is pretty useless. It really doesn't reach far enough and if you wanna do a safari it will not (trust me on this) be long enough.

Macro Lens: I suggest getting a Sigma 105mm. It's got a decent angle of view for the cropped censor and it's cheap. If you really wanna spend some money I'd say go for the Canon MP-E 65mm Macro it's got a awesome, fantastic, wonderful 5 times lifesize magnification!!! WOWSERS!!!

I will post a few more later on this evening.

Congrats on your new cam and lens!!!
Have fun!

You are Lucky to live in a warm climate where flowers and such are still in bloom.  Everything here in the Mountains of Va are drab and dreary right now. :)
  Nice pics for someone who hasnt used a dslr before.  Will be watching for more and what you think of the lens you are using. :)

I admit to knowing nothing about lenses and would appreciate any help that could be provided.

Peewee suggests the 50-500...personally, I dont!
May seem attractive with the price...but the 500 end, it will be f6.3 (far to slow for wildlife!!!, need lots of light!)

The Canon EF300 f4 is NOT a tele but  a PRIME lens (Prime lenses are faster and optically superior to tele len 's!!....and a cracker of a lens at that!

The faster the lens (lower f number(s, 1.2, 1.4, 1.8. 2.8, f4, faster it focuses, locks on etc...the more one can expext to pay

I have the EF500f4 (£4000!!!) and the EF300 f4 (£1000) amongst others!!
You get what you pay for and imo, the results show!
Why put a sub lens on a 40D!?

Well done on posting a few shots.
You'll never get goo macro results from that lens, you'll def need a dedicated one for that type of work.

I admit to knowing nothing about lenses and would appreciate any help that could be provided.

Peewee suggests the 50-500...personally, I dont!
May seem attractive with the price...but the 500 end, it will be f6.3 (far to slow for wildlife!!!, need lots of light!)

The Canon EF300 f4 is NOT a tele but  a PRIME lens (Prime lenses are faster and optically superior to tele len 's!!....and a cracker of a lens at that!

The faster the lens (lower f number(s, 1.2, 1.4, 1.8. 2.8, f4, faster it focuses, locks on etc...the more one can expext to pay.

I sold my EF100-400 (4.5-5.6) cos I found it was too slow at the 400 end (5.6) for what I do...one stop slower in lenses, ie, 5.6 to f4, makes ALL the differance!!

I have the EF500f4 (£4000!!!) and the EF300 f4 (£1000) amongst others!!
You get what you pay for and imo, the results show!
Why put a sub lens on a 40D!?

Its not the lenght of the lens (mm)...its the speed of it that is crucial!!!

Well the speed would come into play with the shots that you take, all your birds and such.
But it def is an importat aspect to consider if you aren't considering raising your ISO :)

I think RCC might not have £4000 to spead thou :( I know I don't...

It's pure nonsense to say a 400 mm is not a tele. It is a tele.

@RCC;
Very nice first butty shot!

I did notice a few things that may help you in the future;

1. You shot this at ISO 400....it does show a bit of noise...so, it would help to go down to ISO 200 or less.  Alternatively, you could process with noise software.
2. Be careful on your focus setting, and focus selection....In this case it appears to have focussed on the leaf on the left hand side of the image, putting the butty just a tad out of focus.
3. I also notice that you shot at F5.6....with macros/close-ups you generally want the most depth of field possible...so,  shooting with a smaller aperture will help in this regard.

I also agree with iloco....you are lucky to have bugs to shoot....not much around here now, except the elusive "snow worm"....LOL!

Have fun, and keep the shots coming....

Tanchelyn, you are indeed right...it is indeed a tele...apoligies.

Wish I had motives like that to shoot right now. :) I saw this too late to make any recommendations, but I think you made a good choice. I'm using the same 28-135mm on my 400D and I like it a lot. As for macro lenses: One suggestion that I think hasn't been made yet is the Tokina ATX AF 100/2.8 I don't have it, but reviews I've read convinced me that it might make a very good addition to my collection at a reasonable price.

Will have my 28-135 tomorrow and glad to see that someone else with a 400D likes it.  Makes me feel little better. :)
 redchilicat, have you taking any landscape pics with the new camera and lens yet.  I am curious your thoughts on the lens when taking a shot other than macro. :)

I took a shot at the lake yesterday, will try to post it later. As for my F setting and ISO, I am still trying to figure out how to operate this thing LOL I will see if I can get outside this afternoon and learn something. I always have growing pains with new cameras. Here is the macro lens I am considering, anon - EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro Lens I will also check out the other suggestions you guys have made.

Quote - @RCC;
Very nice first butty shot!

I did notice a few things that may help you in the future;

1. You shot this at ISO 400....it does show a bit of noise...so, it would help to go down to ISO 200 or less.  Alternatively, you could process with noise software.
2. Be careful on your focus setting, and focus selection....In this case it appears to have focussed on the leaf on the left hand side of the image, putting the butty just a tad out of focus.
3. I also notice that you shot at F5.6....with macros/close-ups you generally want the most depth of field possible...so,  shooting with a smaller aperture will help in this regard.

I also agree with iloco....you are lucky to have bugs to shoot....not much around here now, except the elusive "snow worm"....LOL!

Have fun, and keep the shots coming....

Thanks for the photo. 
I too will have to do some studing when I get my lens tomorrow.  I have been shooting in auto mode with the kit lens. :)

Did you set the camera to use 1 focus point or is it still defaulted to select the focus point it thinks is best? You should be able to adjust the ISO in all but "auto" mode. Using IS you should be able to drop the shutter speed down to around 30th-40th of a sec and still get crisp shots. Enjoy the camera!

Quote - I am having trouble with the focus, I center the focus point over where I want to focus press the shutter to focus, everything looks great in the viewfinder but in the final outcome is out of focus or the focus is elsewhere. The ISO is on auto and stays on 400 for some reason. I am going to read the manual so that I have a better idea of the controls. Also here is the landscape I was promising, it is the only one I have shot and it was hand held, not great but maybe it will help you decide. > Quote - @RCC;

Quote - Did you set the camera to use 1 focus point or is it still defaulted to select the focus point it thinks is best? You should be able to adjust the ISO in all but "auto" mode. Using IS you should be able to drop the shutter speed down to around 30th-40th of a sec and still get crisp shots. Enjoy the camera!

Personaly I'd say 1/50 or 1/60 is more like the limit of the IS, at least if you want to get consistent results and not rely on luck too much. But than again I don't have a very steady hand to begin with, so that could very well be just me. That aside, if your 40D is anything like my 400D in this regard you really should only use 1 autofocus point, as has been pointed out by viper above. For some situations multiple points work nicely, but sometimes more autofocus points just mean the camera starts to think it knows better than you what the focus should be. :-D ;-) Something else about the autofocus is that it uses contrasts (and I guess a few other things) to judge what it's doing, so if you focus on an area with little contrasts the AF may not work as well as you expect it to do. One solution - depending on the motive - may be to aim at something with stronger contrasts that is about the same distance from you as the focal point you actually want. Once the AF has focused keep the trigger halfway depressed and aim at your target before taking the shot. Oh, and BTW, I am still pretty much a beginner myself, so take everything I say with a large serving of salt. :-)

I am using several Sigmas and all perform excellently. the 105 performs awesome on macros and my 50-500 Sigma is a charm. it maybe difficult for some people to hold but I am using 99% with no tripod. the 40D or  10D is on my shopping list next year

As an aside: What is it you want to do with these images? If you just want to share them on the net a 100% sharp focus may not even be needed, as downsizing the image for the net might eat up some of that sharpness anyway. If you want technical perfection that's all well and good, but is it necessary for you? I'm not saying that you shouldn't aim for it, but neither should you dismiss a certain photo just because it doesn't look all that crispy sharp when you zoom in close on your computer. Give yourself time to learn, but please don't think anything that's not picture-perfect can't be used anyway. For example, the image you posted above looks pretty good to me at the size shown in the forum. Nothing wrong with that IMVHO. :-)

It has been cold and rainy where I live but was able to take just a few quick pics with my new 28-134 lens.  I like what I see with the pictures I was able to take.
  As soon as weather breaks will take a couple and post to see what you all think. :)  I am very satisfied so guess thats what counts. :)