Camera!

Mentioned it one or two times already that I'm planning to buy a new cam finally. Back in November 2010, when I started searching for a new one for the first time, I laid eyes on the Canon EOS 500D and til today I stuck with that decision.
I had nothing better to do, so I thought I check if we have some new reviews of that camera and guess what, I found one or another. I don't want to say they pulled the cam to pieces but compared to the Canon EOS 450D the 500D is apparently not worth the ~300€ difference.
Of course, I could make it easy and just buy the Canon 5D MKII SLR for around 2,000€ and have probably the 2nd best camera available at this time then. But wow, no thanks. I simply don't need a camera like that as a hobby photographer.
So I checked the Canon EOS 60D. Allegedly it's like the 500D just a bit better and because of that a bit more expensive of course. From the stats I would agree with that, so I actually already changed my mind to then check the 60D a bit better til I found a review 60D vs. 550D that says the 550D is better. Yay for confusion!
From some other 60D reviews I came across the EOS 600D then! Wow.. how often do they create new models?! Every month? Silly, silly people!
Okay what we can definitely say is that the 600D is better than the 500D! :) So this one is cancelled.
But there's still the 60D. So 60D vs. 600D.
Basically they aren't very different from each other. To be exactly they're kind of the same. They have some minimal differences like one has 97% of this and that while the other one has "only" 96%. Don't think that makes a big difference! But I'm a newbie, prove me wrong if I am. :)
What is remarkable is that the 60D has more extras. Means you have more settings what means more individuality as well as more accessoiries. But not sure if that is important to me. Another remarkable thing is the size/weight. Here wins the 600D by far. To show you what I mean:
60D: 144,5 x 105,8 x 78,6 mm / 755g (incl. battery)
600D: 133,1 x 99,5 x 79,7 mm / 570g (incl. battery)
At first sight this may not seem like much, but especially the weight will be noticed when you have to carry the cam around for a longer time or even have to hold it up for a long time when you're waiting for something to happen. Additionally we shouldn't forget my own height of 5'4, thus small hands. ;)
I guess you can see that I kinda already made a decision...
But there's something else we have to keep in mind: The price.
Let's have a look:
60D body: 999,00€
600D body: 729,00€
(Don't know about you, but that's already confusing me. Especially because the 600D is new while the 60D is available since October '10. So actually it should be the other way..?)
But because I'm a newbie to these cameras I of course don't have lens lying around here. And HERE comes the BIG problem. You can almost always buy the basic set Cambody+EF-S 18-55mm lens for 800€~. What is actually a nice price when you're starting with these cams. But according to some experienced photographers the 18-55mm is useless because... I don't know. Sure, you can take pictures with the lens as well but those profis rarely use them. One wrote that the EF-S 17-55 are WAY better.
And know I'm completely irritated. Why is a EF-S 17-55/2,8/IS SOGOOD and a EF-S 18-55/3,5-5,6/IS SOBAD? I don't get it. Guess here speaks the newbie in me. I can see a difference and I know that it's the light intensity and I also know that the 2,8 is better than 3,5-5,6 but is that worth a 700€ difference?
Yes you read right.
The 17-55mm costs 849,97€ while the 18-55mm costs 109,99€. ...
I simply hope one of my blogreaders knows why that is. Oh and yes, they're both original Canon lens. There's also a Tamron SP AF 17-50mm 2,8 Di II VC for Canon cameras available for 386,90€. Feels already a bit better! haha! Of course also IS!!!
I checked the stats of both and also have to mention that the Tamron seems better. The minimum distance of the Canon lens to an object amounts to 35cm (what is much to me for "profi" lens) while the Tamron lens have a minimal distance of 29cm. The reviews for the Canon lens say almost the same: Testers are unhappy.
I guess there is something what's better with the Canon, but I'm a newbie and I have no idea about that and I'm not sure if that is then worth 400€.
Okay let's have an interim result:
Canon EOS 600D body + Tamron SP AF 17-50mm 2,8 Di II VC IS = 1115,90€
Canon EOS 600D Set (body + Canon EF-S 18-55mm 1:3,5-5,6 IS II) = 849,00€
Canon EOS 600D Set II (body + Canon EF-S 18-135mm 1:3,5-5,6 IS) = 1084,99€
Canon EOS 600D Set III (body + Canon EF-S 18-55 IS II & EF-S 55-250 IS) = 1099,00€

Do you guys understand my problem? I guess so.
It actually wouldn't make much sense to buy anything else that the first option when it's about quality, but I think it's a bit compelling when you can have two lenses for less money than one lens. But on the other hand both lenses are probably bad? So it's a waste of money. Best thing to do: Stay with option 1, right?

But what comes after? I mean the next lenses? Took a look at some 50-xxmm but the light intensity looks crappy. Except the L-Series, but an L-lens is more expensive than the whole camera lol. But well, I guess the basic lens are enought for the first time.
If anyone has suggestions about what I should change or what would be better etc etc, just tell me. It will take some time til I'll order it.

I'm sorry for the long entry. If you arrived here, thanks for reading! I love you! :)

EDIT:
Now I understand why the standard lens Canon EF-S 18-55mm 1:3,5-5,6 IS II suck.
Warning: 5834x3456 so it may take some time to load them.

ISO 400
ISO 400
ISO 400
ISO 100

I guess I speak for all of us when I say: Ew.
But I don't know how the results are when you minimize them. Doesn't look like they tested much with the cam/lens. Or maybe it's an untalented photographer. I don't know. I just know that these pictures are ew.