soon to be a 'Canon/DSLR newbie' here!

[billnelson75]

The first thing I purchased after I bought my DSLR/kit lens combo was the 50 f1.8, and I enjoyed it so much, I almost stopped using my kit lens completely after that.  The IQ difference, and ability to adjust aperture down to 1.8 is a great advantage. 

Whatever you do, I would leave yourself some $$$ to get the 50mm f1.8. 

I also have the f1.4, and it is definitely better built, but you can learn and do so much more with the f1.8 over your kit lens.  I also liked having a smaller/lighter lens on my DSLR when I was going out shooting.  I would put the kit lens in my shoulder bag and walk around with the DSLR/50mm around my neck.  The 50mm is a great focal lenghth, yes it will limit you at times, but that is why I carried the kit lens in my bag, just in case I was somewhere that I needed to go real wide or zoom in.  Otherwise, I shot almost everything with my 50, and the IQ difference is pretty big.

Also, just to mentioned, you said you are interested in the 60d as you plan to hold onto it for 5 years, but that model is 2 years old, and the t4i is the latest rebel model.  I haven't researched this, but I think the t4i might have better ISO performance, and while many other features are great to have, that is a big one to consider and research.  I do know that the t4i has the newest digic processor, while the 60d has the previous generation of processor.  Just something to think about.  If I plan to keep a piece of technology for 5 years, I prefer to have the most recent iteration of said technology, for that reason, I'd look strongly at the t4i.  Especially if its cheaper, and even more so if the ISO performance is stronger, as I suspect it might be.

[marinien]

EDIT:
Hmmm 15-85mm? It costs around 800$(750euro) Wouldn't there be an L lens in that price range? *Not planning to buy one soon, just curious.*

I am with Neuro here. Compare to the 18-135, the 15-85 seems to deliver superior image quality (I haven't owned the 18-135). To me, on a x1.6 crop body, the 15-17 range is far more important than the 86-135 range.

I had the combo 1DIIN + 24-105L, then I got the 7D + 15-85. I sold the 1DIIN. Then I sold the 24-105 and kept the 15-85. The 15-85 is the better lens on a x1.6 crop body.

[eddiemrg]

15-85 is so damn good...!
IQ is competitive if compared to an L series

[AdrianAllen]

Do you see yourself getting more serious about photography?  Why not go directly to FF?  If you have the money, you can go for a 6D or 5D2 for just a little bit more.  If not, go for a 5D classic.  5D + 50mm F1.4 + flash will go a long way.  You can add lenses as you go.  If you see yourself going FF sometime soon, don't waste your money on an APS-C body and lens.  Just my 2 cents.

Who doesn't want a full frame camera? Of course I do. I've been looking around for the 5D2 also, lowest i've seen is about 1600-1700euro now, I know it's only a couple of hundreds difference, But it still won't even be close to my budget. Its too expensive for me who's having a hard time even choosing between a kit lens and a 50/1.4 And i've seen the 6d. It's build quality is no better(IMO) than the 60d, the only difference is that the former one is a FF.

I believe it's an affair you have with Canon, not marriage. Marriage is supposed to make you poorer AND miserable.

I sense someone who's not happy with his marriage

Also, just to mentioned, you said you are interested in the 60d as you plan to hold onto it for 5 years, but that model is 2 years old, and the t4i is the latest rebel model.  I haven't researched this, but I think the t4i might have better ISO performance, and while many other features are great to have, that is a big one to consider and research.  I do know that the t4i has the newest digic processor, while the 60d has the previous generation of processor.  Just something to think about.  If I plan to keep a piece of technology for 5 years, I prefer to have the most recent iteration of said technology, for that reason, I'd look strongly at the t4i.  Especially if its cheaper, and even more so if the ISO performance is stronger, as I suspect it might be.

The thing is, they almost always bring out a rebel every year. I would rather get the one who can stand the next of time(60d) over the one who gets replaced every year. Unless they would release an upgrade for the 60d 1st-2nd quarter of next year. And if I remember correctly from all the reviews I've read/watched, you really can't see the difference in the image quality between the digic4 and digic5+, canon improved it mostly for the video capabilities of the camera(correct me if i'm wrong).

[neuroanatomist]

EDIT:
Hmmm 15-85mm? It costs around 800$(750euro) Wouldn't there be an L lens in that price range? *Not planning to buy one soon, just curious.*

The 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is even more expensive.  IMO, the 17-55mm is the best general purpose zoom for APS-C, and the 15-85mm is a close second.  Both lenses are of L-series optical quality (as is the 10-22mm), but not build quality. Compared to the 24-105L or 17-40L, those three EF-S lenses (17-55, 15-85, 10-22) actually deliver better IQ than the 24-105 and 17-40 L lenses on the same APS-C camera (and the 17-55 outperforms the 16-35L II on APS-C, I know from personal experience).   

The 17-40mm is sort of 'general purpose' (a little short on the long end) on APS-C, the 24-105 isn't in that category (it gives the FF-equivalent AoV of 38-168mm on APS-C, meaning it's normal to tele, and a general purpose zoom should cover wide to short tele).

The only times I'd recommend one of the L lenses over the 17-55 or 15-85 are if you have a 7D (decent weather sealing) and need a sealed lens to use in inclement weather, or if you have both FF and APS-C or are getting a FF in the very near future (weeks/months, not years). 

[aj1575]

Questions, 1) image quality wise, which of the two excel? 2) which would be better in low light or bright light? 3) Will I be missing out on the reach of the 18-135mm (close-ups/ tele) IF I do decide to get the 50mm f1.4?

I would also recommend you the EF-S 15-85. It has a very good range. The 15mm will save you from buying a wide angle in the near future, and 85 is already quite good. If you like more reach you can still add a tele (55-250mm or something like that in the future). If you like to buy a prime, then I would also consider the 35mm f2, it is rather old but it is very cheap for what you get, and it is has a more interesting focal length on a APS-C. I own the 50mm 1.4 and the 35mm f2, and even if the 50 is opicaly better, I use the 35 much more often.

To the body. If you deceide to go with the 15-85 (which I would now with the knowledge I've got after several years of shooting DSLR), but it seems to expensive, then you should also consider a 650D. It will save you some money, which you can invest into the lens. IQ will be the same on both cameras (same sensor), and there aren't that many features you will miss in the beginning.

You most likely will switch the body after 4-5years, but you will keep your lenses for a longer time. The 15-85 is for APS-C something like the 24-105 L is for FF, there are just no L-Lenses for APS-C

[verysimplejason]

Who doesn't want a full frame camera? Of course I do. I've been looking around for the 5D2 also, lowest i've seen is about 1600-1700euro now, I know it's only a couple of hundreds difference, But it still won't even be close to my budget. Its too expensive for me who's having a hard time even choosing between a kit lens and a 50/1.4 And i've seen the 6d. It's build quality is no better(IMO) than the 60d, the only difference is that the former one is a FF.

6D is weather sealed.  60D isn't.  IQ, ISO performance and DR is way above what you can get from 60D.  Sorry but that's not a small thing.   If you don't have that kind of money and if you don't need video, 5D classic will perform much better than 60D.  It's a little bit cheaper also but you'll get better IQ.  If you can find a 5D classic that's not used much + 50mm 1.4/1.8, it will produce a lot better pictures than 60D and any kit lens that you can think of. 
That said, it's still up to you.  I'm just here to share my outlook on photography.  Whether you listen to my advice or not, it's your money.  Happy shooting.   

[Rams_eos]

I did have the same decision to make last year.

I purchased the 600D (T3i) with the 18-55 kit and a 70-200 F4 L is.

I was using Minolta SLR for long. Then moved to Canon G9 then G10.
What I can say is that I have been very disappointed by the lack “pleasure” to use the 600D. I found it not easy to use if you want to setup manually.
The image quality is very good, with the 70-200L you get quality you don’t even think the sensor is capable of . The lens make the difference.
In the price range, the 7D is a bit bulky and heavy. The 5D2 does not have a built in flash.
I would definitively go for 60D unless you are doing a lot of video (for video, 650D is better).

The replacement should arrive in a few month but I suspect the price of the new model will be much higher .
So now, I would get the best deal on 60D to get a very good camera.
If there is some cash left, the 17-55 is just amazing. Try to get a good second hand one.
Otherwise, the 18-135 is a very good all-purpose travel lens.

Anyway, welcome to this forum.

[7enderbender]

Everyone has valid points here. There is no right or wrong answer I don't think. Here is my take: I have a thing for primes and especially for the 50mm "normal" range. I would stay away from the zoom lens for now and buy a prime that makes most sense to what you want to do and learn. Problem is that on a "crop" camera like the 60D your 50mm lens is really more like an 85mm lens. That can be great but takes away from the versatility of the old fashioned "normal" lens approach. So if you want to learn photography the old fashioned way and you are attracted to the 50mm because of that then I would look at something in the 30mm range or even less (crop factor on Canon is x1.6, so a 30 would be 48mm equivalent; 35=56mm which can be great).

If it was me and this was what I'd have to work with I would check if my budget allows for one of the decent 30 or 35mm lenses and maybe the 85 1.8 for a short tele (135mm full frame equivalent). I personally believe that what you're going to learn with that kind of combo will be more valuable than going for one of the super-duper-everything zooms that are not great quality and limit your options with respect to control over depth of field.

And just to mention it: given their low cost (relatively speaking) the 50 1.8 and the new 40mm lens would always be under consideration in my book.

[AdrianAllen]

The 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is even more expensive.  IMO, the 17-55mm is the best general purpose zoom for APS-C, and the 15-85mm is a close second.  Both lenses are of L-series optical quality (as is the 10-22mm), but not build quality. Compared to the 24-105L or 17-40L, those three EF-S lenses (17-55, 15-85, 10-22) actually deliver better IQ than the 24-105 and 17-40 L lenses on the same APS-C camera (and the 17-55 outperforms the 16-35L II on APS-C, I know from personal experience).   

I'll keep these in mind. Actually taking notes now

A quick addition to the mix-up. While I've been looking around for all of your suggestions, I saw another kit lens/bundle (I don't know which is which really) which had a 17-85mm that only had like 80euro difference from the 18-135mm kit. Would I be getting more for my money if I should get that 17-85mm over the 18-135mm? Or should I just save it up for another lens? Thanks again and sorry if i'm being to fickle minded.

[Axilrod]

It may be worth checking out the Sigma 30mm f/1.4.  I've heard nothing but good things and it would be close to the equivalent of 50mm on full frame (which is a very versatile focal length).  I think they are under $400 used.

Can you not get in on the B&H 60D deal ($899 for 60D+18-135 and a few other things)?

[ahab1372]

I'll keep these in mind. Actually taking notes now

A quick addition to the mix-up. While I've been looking around for all of your suggestions, I saw another kit lens/bundle (I don't know which is which really) which had a 17-85mm that only had like 80euro difference from the 18-135mm kit. Would I be getting more for my money if I should get that 17-85mm over the 18-135mm? Or should I just save it up for another lens? Thanks again and sorry if i'm being to fickle minded.

All I have read about the 17-85 says it is not very good, definitely not better than the new 18-135 STM, and I believe not better than the old 18-135 either

[neuroanatomist]

I saw another kit lens/bundle (I don't know which is which really) which had a 17-85mm that only had like 80euro difference from the 18-135mm kit.

No, take the 18-135 over the 17-85 - the latter is an older design, IQ is not quite as good as the 18-135mm. 

[Marsu42]

6D is weather sealed.  60D isn't. 

It isn't as simple as that - sealing is not a binary value - its Rebels < 60D < 6D < 5D3 < 1D ... I don't know how the 7d does in comparison to the 6d. The 60d has some sealing (but not at the lens mount point, so with an L lens it's only one side), but I shot in light rain with no problems. The added sealing on the 6d wouldn't make me confident enough to actually shoot in prolonged rain, and even 5d3 users broke their camera doing that - so water "sealing" is more for the peace of mind, for actual "safety" you'll need a 1d body.

Thus dust sealing is more important to me, and in this category even the 60d should do ok (unless non-sealed lenses, esp. zooms which will attract dust and sand like a magnet).

[NormanBates]

To get an idea about how cameras and lenses work, what you need and why:
http://www.similaar.com/foto/tuten/index.html

Some recommendations of lenses for Canon, on a budget:
http://www.similaar.com/foto/equipment/us_lensc.html