APT:

Unfortunately, these two topics have very different needs on the lense.
For landscape, you usually want sharp wide angle lenses. Because of the
crop factor of your camera, wide angle meens really short focal length.
The 17-85mm is probably the closest you mentioned for landscape
photography.

For wildlife however you usually need long and *fast* lenses. The crop
factor actually helps here, but for good results you still need to
invest serious money. Depending on what you want to do, you probably
need 200 or 300mm focal length, good sharpness, and a speed of f/4 is
really recommended. I would be extremely sceptical about the kit
75-300. It may be cheap, but I would still call it a waste of money.

Unfortunately, serious lenses for wildlife photography also tend to be
seriously expensive.

One lense absolutely worth getting though is the 50/1.8. It is very
helpful for working in dark conditions, for getting crisp results, for
working with selective focus and for any kind of portrait work. Nothing
you mentioned, but this is a cheap, good and versatile lense.

Thomas

Given the crop factor this might not be wide enough for your
requirements since it is about equal to using 45mm on a 35mm SLR.

This is on my list.

I bought mine with the kit lens because it was only slightly more than
the body only and it got me started.

A not bad combination, at a low price, and giving you effectively 29 -
320mm. How suitable it is for you depends on the photographs YOU will
take and how large you will print them.

This also is on my list.

It depends on your requirements.

If most of your photographs are from tripod then you do not need it, if
your are photographing moving wild life then probably not because you
will be tracking it. Having said that it is another tool which can let
you obtain a sharp photo under some conditions and as such it is
desirable, and essential to some.

I bought my 350D with the kit lens as stated above and intend to
purchase the 70-300 next and then perhaps the 17-85, although I might
get the 10-22 before that. For photographing art you might consider the
50mm f/1.8, its quite cheap, fast, and has a good reputation.

Around here I'm bound to be building a reputation for giving this exact
advice too often, but I think it is fine advice so I'll keep doing it.

When I bought my first camera, I went for a slow superzoom giving me
wide and telephoto focal lengths, assuming that I would have more
options and I'd learn more. It's an easy assumption to make, and is
certainly seems to have all of the weight of logic behind it. But it is
wrong. It wasn't for a couple of years, when I was learning to be a
cinematographer using very fast prime lenses that I actually learned
anything about taking good pictures. You're just starting, and honestly
you'll develop those creative muscles if you have a fixed focal length
and you don't have the option of zooming in or zooming out. More
importantly, with a fast(er) prime, you'll be able to play with focus
and take pictures in low light. If you have a zoom that (at best) opens
up to a 4.0, you won't be doing half of what you could be.

Now, I get that you want to be able to take both wide and telephoto
pictures, so the suggestion of getting only prime lenses isn't going to
hold alot of water. Of the options you mentioned, only the 17-85 seems
like a good idea to me. First of all, if 28mm is your widest option,
you won't be getting any wide pictures at all... 28mm is a bit longer
than the textbook definition of "normal" on the Rebel XT. Secondly,
that 18-55 is a pretty poor lens.

So get the 17-85. And if you have an extra $250 to spare, get both the
50mm 1.8 and the 28mm 2.8. Neither will break the bank and both will
teach you alot. If you can't afford both, then get one of them,
considering the following:

The 50mm 1.8 will be a great portraiture lens and will be a fast lens,
affording you the opportunity to play with selective focus and low
light. It will, however, be a bit too "long" for alot of all around
use.

The 28mm 2.8 will be a normal lens and will be rather fast. Using it,
you may frequently want to be just a little longer or just a little
wider, but that's what makes a normal lens such a great way to discover
your own tastes when shooting. You could easily get the 35mm 2.0
instead and get a little bit of both worlds too, as an option.

You could also splurge and get the 28mm 1.8, which is an outstanding
lens for a cropped sensor like the XT has. You likely don't have the
$400 to spare, but if you do, this would be the best learning tool you
can get. I have the 28mm 1.8 along with a 16-35 2.8, a 50mm 1.4, and a
100mm 2.0, and ever since I got the 28, it has been on my camera 80% of
the time. There's nothing it does better than all other lenses, but it
does everything nearly as well as any other lens. And it's fast. It is
the closest thing to a "fast 50" on a 35mm camera that you can get.

In the end, the decision is yours to make, and on your own terms, as
you stated them, the 17-85 is the only good choice. But please, for
your own good, invest in some kind of a fast prime as well.

Will

The thing to remember is the crop factor.  the 28-105 will become 44.8-168.
Traditional lenses were sold with 28-80 and 28-90.  That is good for indoor
work, landscapes and portrait.  Some better lenses were the 28-105.

This is why the basic kit lens is 17-55. Its really a 27.2-88 or roughly a
28-90.  The EF-S is much better quality glass.  It has at least one
aspherical element in it.  It is also Images stabilised.  Great for indoor
and low light.

Unless you are selling your work the basic 17-55 is good to use.  I use it
just for the 17mm.  I normally keep a 2nd hand 28-105 on it.  Its a better
version than the current 28-105 that is sold new.  It is surprisingly good
and sharp.  Lots of detail and resolution.  For general purpose photography
you will want one lens in your kit that goes wide as 17mm.  Unless you do
sport or wildlife leave the long zooms alone for now. so just get a basic
body and 17-55 or splurge for the 17-85.  Thats my final verdict.

Canon 50/1.8
Canon 28/2.8
Olympus 0.7x
Canon 70-300/4-5.6 IS

http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr

Thank you all for helping out. I certainly learned a lot.

If anything I will go for the EF-S 17-85. I think wide angle is more where
my interest is now.

I may splurge for a second lens. Either an inexpensive zoom like the 75-300,
so I can play around with wildlife photography. Or a fixed lens to really
enhance my learning curve.

I am sure you all hear from me again.

Great news group!

Steve