Arrrg, why can’t people just not be jerks.
Ouch. Sorry to hear about that.
treis aw man, that really sucks. Do you have travel insurance that covers loss from theft? If you purchased that equipment with your credit card, check to see if they have some travel insurance built in for that sort of thing. Some cards do.
I bought a new lens today that you might want to consider if you need a replacement and can’t afford the other lenses - It’s a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 zoom. It’s small and light and makes for a very good replacement for the Canon kit lens. The focal range will suit you for everything from indoor to architecture to landscape shots. The lens is around $450, but I think you can find them used for closer to $300. That and a used camera body could get you back in the game. It’s a fast lens that can be used for indoor shots without a flash if you stabilize the camera properly.
Ouch +1. That sucks. Sorry it happened to you, treis.
Sam’s advice above is sound – some credit cards have theft loss and other services you may not know you had. Check it out.
Man that sucks donkey balls.
Thanks for the advice about credit cards guys. I used my Schwab Visa Debit card to make the purchase so there may still be hope yet!
Though I can’t imagine all the warning sounds and popup windows this is going to generate if they do have insurance. Expensive electronics, shipped to Nicaragua, and reported stolen after 2 days.
…oooo, coincidence. Last night I was looking for at the Tamrons, looking to upgrade my kit 18-50, and I had settled on the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8! I bought the 500D based on your recommendation, guess I’ll be getting the Tamron as well! Is this the same one?
http://www.einfo.co.nz/shop/tamron-1750mm-aspherical-p-10612.html
To treis… 
Nothing more I can really say.
That’s the lens.
Tamron makes two 17-50 f2.8 zooms. One has Vibration Control (VC), which is Tamron’s version of Canon’s Image Stabilization. Those lenses will have ‘VC’ in the name, and they’re about $100-$200 more than the non-VC lens. However, most reviewers agree that the non-VC lens is generally superior in image quality and construction.
So unless you absolutely need image stabilization (and it’s far more important in a long zoom than in a 17-50), save yourself some money and get the non-VC lens.
Oh less sad day!
Looks like I am covered up to $500 per claim. Depending on what the exact definition of claim is, I might be able to get my money back minus shipping.
The 1.4 and 1.2 are not better unless you shoot with your apertures wide open. The 1.8 is an excellent lens and unless you have an application that requires a wider aperture there is no reason to spend the additional money and be weighed down. If you need bokkeh then the 1.2 is going to be the best.
The other lenses have a lot of things going for them other than speed. USM focusing, metal construction, better bokeh as you mentioned. The 50mm 1.8 has a slow, noisy focus motor. It tends to hunt in low light. It’s cheaply made.
It’s a great value lens. Because it’s a prime, it can outperform zoom lenses worth ten times as much when they’re at 50mm. Being light is also handy. But those other lenses are superior in many ways other than aperture.
Don’t get me wrong - the 50mm 1.8 is a great lens. I have one, and use it a lot. The image quality is stellar for its price.
…fantastic stuff!!!
Ordered the non-VC an hour ago, delivery promised in 1-4 days…I can’t wait!