Are these Sigma or Canon lenses?

I vote for the 28-135 3.5 IS because it's overall faster & probably
better quality and sort of medium length though definitely leaning
toward the long end. If there was a faster affordable 24-80 f/2.8 that
would be ideal and might be tempting from a third party manufacturer. In
the end you are either happy with this & stay there or you get two more
lenses in the future (or more). It's not a sexy zoom range but it's
practical.

In all likelihood you're going to need something wider than 28mm.  I used
the kit 18-55 for quite some time but the 55-200 I bought with it was
virtually worthless from 120 on up.

I'd recommend not getting the kit lens getting something in the 24-135 range
instead and then decide from there.

Greg

The only thing missing is quality.  I've only seen one 55-200, but I was
very far from impressed, both with its build quality and its optical
quality.  That lens was designed several years ago to fit on Canon's APS
film bodies, very few of which were produced. The II version, which I guess
is what you are looking at, is a re-release of this lens for digital
cameras, which have the same size sensor for which it was originally
designed.
The 28-135 IS is a far, far better lens than any of  the EF-S other APS type
choices.  You'll find IS to be a welcome crutch in a lot of situations.
That lens was my only lens for a long time.  The 28-105 f3.5-4.5 is a close
second, as far as your choices go.

Sometimes I think people want us to tell them what they want to hear - that
what they've decided is OK - whereas in reality we're probably more often
than not too polite to say that the idea, frankly, sucks.

So in the spirit of "honest opinion", forget the kit lens - they're a bad
joke for what you want to do. Best you'll be able to do with the standard
18-55 is get to know the camera a bit.

I'd be inclined to go for the longer focal lengths - 70 - 200 F4L 2nd hand
might be a good choice. The short end will allow you to do portraiture type
photography, and the 200mm end will get you as close as you're able to
wildlife (although I suspect you'll still find it waaaay to short for many
occasions). Such a lens can also be used for landscape - BUT - you'll need
to mount it on a tripod, take a series ov overlapping shots, and then use
any one of a number of programs (some free) to stitch them together in a way
that you just simply can't tell it's more than one photo (I routinely do
panoramas of 8 or more shots - and it's really very very east once you know
a few sinple rules) (having said that, shooting manual is one of the simple
rules - and for that you'd find it much easier with a 2nd hand 20D than with
a 350D).

That's my 10c worth.

<snip overthink>

What I hear is: you don't know what you want to photograph.

OK. How do you find out? Start photographing. How to start
photographing without wasting a lot of money on stuff you won't end up
liking or using?

Buy an inexpensive point and shoot with moderate telephoto
capabilities. Use it for a week or four, and see what you feel like
you are really, really missing. The basic photo skills you use will
stand you in good stead, and the pictures will help you discover if it
is all worth while anyway.

Some of the best photojournalism and photo art have been done with
pretty rudimentary equipment, compared to what is available today.
Swing that little p&s around in public, capture some unusual
perspective, you may decide to leave the heavy iron to the
photoperfectionists.

You're going to want a p&s for your pocket, even after you decide
which lenses will be best for you on your new dSLR, so no loss on that
first investment, and you'll be able to start shooting right away.

The more experience you have with _any_ kind of photography, the
better your next decisions will be.

--
Frank ess
"In this universe there are things
that just don't yield to thinking
—plain or fancy—Dude".
—J. Spicoli, PolyPartyPerson

There are lots of variations on lens logic.  My logic says for a beginner,
get decent quality and reasonable range, and then use it until you make up
your mind what you actually need.  Then buy real quality to fill that need.

Of the lenses you mention the best starter is the 28-135 IS.  If you find
yourself always shooting on the 135 end, then think of buying a good longer
lens, maybe even a long prime.   If you find yourself always on the 28 end
and stepping backwards, get a good wide angle.

Always stretch your budget on a lens purchase.  You will never regret it in
the long run, but you will live a long time with poor quality if you
purchase it.  An old friend once told me that, "Nothing lasts as long as
something that will do for now."  Avoid that if you can.

That's my logic, anyway.

L.C.

I have 28-135 IS: a good sharp lens for outdoors. Close to useless indoors,
however (unless you have bright light sources). For indoors you will need
either a decent flash (580EX is what I use with that lens in bounce mode),
or fast prime (50/1.4) - either choice will set you back around 300$.

Just my $0.02

Peter

Well, here's what I did: I bought a 2nd hand Rebel from a friend, along
with the 18-55 kit lens, and Canon's 80-200 f4.5-5.6 zoom. This freed
me of having to make a decision (that's what he was selling), and it
gave me a cheap system to play with and see what sort of photography I
liked to do. Neither of these are 'good' lenses by any stretch of the
imagination, but I still got plenty of pictures I was happy with,
including some that I was very happy with indeed, and it let me get out
and enjoy photography without worrying about bankrupting myself on
gear. A side benefit was that both of these lenses are nice and light
to carry around. The gap between 55mm and 80mm really never gave me any
problems that couldn't be solved by walking a couple meters :)

By playing with these lenses for a year, I got to learn about the type
of photography I enjoy. After using, and enjoying, my camera for almost
year, I decided that the 80-200 was due for an upgrade. I only made
this decision when I realized how much I used it, what I used it for,
and why I felt it was inadequate. After some dithering, I replaced it
with the 75-300 IS, which I get much nicer pictures from (of backyard
wildlife, young cousins playing soccer, and candid portraits at family
parties, if you're wondering). And I gave the 80-200 to my sister, who
shoots 35mm film quite happily with it, as I try to learn a lesson from
her, focusing on the pictures, not the gear

Just recently, I bought Canon's 50mm f/1.8. I had been planning to
replace the 18-55, but realized that right now it's doing just fine for
what I use it for, and that I'd see more benefit from the 50mm f/1.8
than I would from the 17-85 IS (which is what I had been planning to
get).

In the end, I don't think I wasted money. The cheap lenses aren't the
best quality, but you know what? They still take pictures, and probably
98% of the bad pictures I've taken can be blamed on myself - either
artistically (bad framing, composition, whatever) or technically
(ridiculously bad settings on the camera, focusing on the wrong spot,
bad metering). And by buying cheap lenses up front, you avoid dropping
loads of cash on lenses that don't fit your style.

Plus, with better lenses you're more likely to agonize over image
quality. If you go "Hey, I know there's a $5 lens on the front of this
camera" you ignore the finer details and pay attention to the basics
(like "Gee, I should have probably made sure that my grandmother didn't
have those terrible shadows across her face").

And re: the 18-55? I'm still sort of thinking of upgrading, but I doubt
I will anytime soon. I use the 18-24mm range on it an awful lot, and
while the 24-105 f/4L IS looks nice, I think I'd miss the wide range,
and I'm not convinced the 17-85 IS is really worth the money for the
upgrade. So, I'll keep shooting with the 18-55, and I'll keep knowing
that 98% of my bad shots would have been bad with any lens.

- Darryl

(Oh, and IMO, totally non-scientific: the quality of my 18-55 is higher
than my 80-200 was, which had a direct impact on the 80-200 being
replaced first.)

I have this lens and it is a good one.

If you are into landscape you will want 17 or 18 mm

I only use the 18-55 for the wide end.  Otherwise the 28-105 stays on.

You can start with a Canon 50/1.8. If you want something wider, add a
Canon 28/2.8. If you still want wider, add an Olympus 0.7x. These cost
least but offer highest quality.

Later, if you want, add a wide or normal zoom. But the primes will
still be useful, no matter how expensive the zoom you buy.

If you want longer, add a Canon 70-300/4-5.6 IS. If you want prime, add
a Canon 200/2.8 and/or Canon 85/1.8.

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