Ok, i have been looking at Canon DSLR for quite some time. I currently have an old out of service EOS Elan with a couple lenses but nothing too special.

I have decided to go ahead and get the 40D. To be honest i was looking at the 30D so long, that now the 40D is out and seems to be worth price difference to me.

Now I really want to follow this purchase with a better lens purchase around christmas (which i know from reading plenty of posts here, everyone says lenses are the most important and I should worry about that first).

So all this leads to my question. Leftover with my Elan is a Canon EF 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 USM. It was an upgraded lens from the typical kit lens of the time.

Its not the newer type II ultrasonic nor IS.

Would it be a mistake to use this as my main lens until I get the 70-200 2.8 IS, followed by a better replacement lens for my main lens?

The other option is to spend the extra $200 and get the 28-135 IS kit.

I have no doubt the kit lens is a step up in technology, but it is $200 I could put towards another lens. Will I see the $200 value through the pictures i take during my learning period of the camera?

I am not looking for stellar right off the bat, as i will have some sort of learning period with the camera and what ever lens I decided to start with.

Thanks in advance for the help!

A number of people have been purchasing the kit and then turning around and selling the lens. It is worth more than the $200 you would pay for it. At worst, you could use it for a while and sell it then. You would still likely end up ahead of the game dollar wise.

Your lens gets decent reviews at photozone.de, a respected review site. It shuold be fine for a 'normal to mild tele' zoom lens. What you are missing is the wide end. Typically with a crop sensor camera, you want to get down to 17 or 18mm (corresponding to 24-28 on the film camera). Yes the kit lens is not a bad deal - if you can get such a deal with the 17-85IS, that might do you well.As you are planning on buying a very expensive tele, I suggest spending $400 on a tamron 17-50 f/2.8 - very well regarded and a good piece of glass. Will hold it's value pretty well.

Both great suggestions! I had thought of the resale factor of the kit lens as an option myself. Thanks elader for the review site. That makes things a little easier. I will also research the Tamron 17-50. That seems like something to consider as well.

I just want to make the best decision for me to not kick myself too much 3,6,12 months down the road.

I think a lens like the 17-50 might be a good choice. Also, you may want to get a wider zoom to go together with your 28-105.That would be more expensive but also possibly more fun if you find that you like the 28mm end of the zoom when on your Elan (and wish it be wider). That could be something like a 10-22, a Sigma 10-20 or 12-24 (or maybe the Sigma 15-30).

The problem with kits lenses (in general) are one or all of the following:

1> poor optical quality (low end glass, poor optics)
2> poor build quality (plastic mount / plastic barrel and internal components)
3> very slow maximum aperature (typically something like f/4.5-5.6)

Of course, if it's your first EF camera, or first lens, then by all means, consider getting and using a kit lens until you determine exactly lens(es) you require for the type of shooting you are doing (or want to do).

I'm not a pro by any means, but I really like the 28-135. I've had what I thought were some really decent shots come from this lens in different light conditions. Obviously, there's plenty of room for upgrades. But to get you started, it's not a bad choice.

I have the 28-105 which I got with my EOS 650 back in 1989. When I got my 20D in the Fall of 2004, I used the 28-105 on it for about 6 months until I started to get "L" fever. It worked well. With all the lenses I have now, I think I'd still pick up the 40D with the 28-135 IS for the extra $200. You could sell it or keep it, but for $200, I don't think you can beat it.

I am having a hard time making the move to sell the 28-135 - I like it too. There are plenty of times I do not need 17-28mm of the 17-55 but really appreciate the reach of 55-135. Even better, I can usually predict this.

I have been thinking of just keeping the 10-22 and trading the 17-55IS and 28-135IS for the 24-105LIS. Except for the f/2.8 of the 17-55 I think it would be a no brainer.

I keep looking at sample photos here and in other spots from the 24-105L, and have yet to see one that I thought I couldn't duplicate (as far as color / sharpness / detail) with my 28-135. Maybe I have a good copy...I'm not sure. It would be nice to make the jump to "L" in this range of lens, but I just don't think the extra $$ is truly worth it.

I just got the 28-135 IS and 40D kit and I'm keeping the lens. It's a great lens to lug around when I don't want to take my 24-70L.

For $200 you can't beat it either.

Actually, if you think about it, the 28-135 is not really a "Kit" lens. It is a good quality and solid lens. Not an L but is way better than the normal 18-55.

For just one lens I'd still go for the 17-85IS. It is better than most people give credit for and the range is incredibly useful.

While I have several other lenses, I also got the 28-135 IS lens in a kit with my 40D. For only $200 extra dollars, it is a great lens. I have been using it on my old 30D which I gave my wife and she has produced some excellent shots with it including portraits of our kids and their sporting events. I also keep our 10-22 in that bag since I rarely use it and in case she needs wide angle.

I have been using the 17-55 IS and the 70-200 f4 L IS on the 40D so we have things pretty well covered along with a few faster primes.