Looking to complement my 18-55mm Kit lens.

Im moving to Africa for the next two years, and I'm looking for a good lens to complement my Rebel XT kit lens.
I need something that's versatile (I don't want to carry more than 2 lenses since dust would be a huge factor), IS would also be nice since I don't plan on using a tripod that much.

My price range would probably be $100-$500.

Thanks for any suggestions.

The only thing I can think of in that price range is the Sigma (or Tamron) 18-200mm which runs around $400, give or take. It could replace your kit lens since it covers the same range and them some, with an improvement in image quality. 200mm probably wouldn't get you a lot of safari shots since they usually require REALLY long lenses, but it would be a nice way to get a lot without changing lenses at all. It wouldn't be any good in low light without a flash though and doesn't have IS. I don't think there even exists a lens with IS for under $500.

No, don't think so. Other than the 28-135 IS, of course. The 70-300 IS might be an option to think about. Right around $500.

Well I was looking at the Canon 28-135mm IS lens on Amazon here.

The 70-300mm looks a little hefty for travel, does anyone know otherwise?

It's not a heavy lens at all...not much more than the 28-135, I didn't think. Then again, my standard lens for my camera is over 2 lbs.

Oh, and you can get a 28-135 IS for about $350 used...sometimes less. Keep your eyes open.

I'm looking to capture mostly people/some landscapes if that helps.

I read that the 70-300mm lens has trouble with blurry images in the portrait orientation.

If you're looking for mostly people and landscapes, I doubt you need a real long lens, or even IS since people move. IS doesn't stop movement...it only counters camera shake. I'd recommend the Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 USM instead then. You get a bit faster apertures and a sharper lens than the 28-135 IS. I doubt you'd really need IS in a lens of this focal range...unless you're an extremely shaky jitterbug.

The only reason I would want IS would be for low light shots since I dont plan on taking a tripod with me, but that may not be the deciding factor. I don't want huge obvious flashes with my photos since alot of the people probably wouldn't appreciate it.

Most likely you'll be using the kit lens for landscapes because you'll want to go as wide as possible to soak it all in. At any rate, you can figure on eliminating shake if your shutter speed is at least 1/focal length. In other words, if you can get at least 1/30th shutter speed at 28mm, you'll be fine. It's always subject to the individual however so you might be even able to go with a slower shutter speed if you're rock steady, or maybe bump it up a bit if you're not so solid. 1/30th is pretty slow anyway and that's most likely a sunset speed. There's always the option of raising the ISO levels since the Canon cameras do a pretty nice job of controlling noise. I would be more concerned with holding the camera level than steady.

You might even want to rethink the whole tripod idea. You can get a cheap, small, lightweight one that would be easy to carry and only bust it out when you wanna do a lowlight landscape.

As for lowlight people shots...you can pretty much forget it without flash unless you throw in a fast prime like the 50mm f/1.8 for about 75 bucks. It's focusing is iffy since it's a cheap lens but it would give you the shutter speeds you need. Your budget doesn't really allow for anything better unless you forget the zoom and go with a really good prime or 2...but then you're limited with the landscapes.

I'm sure most of my photos would be in bright sunlight anyway, so the low light photos would probably be the least important factor. I do have the mounted flash anyway and can always increase the ISO like mentioned above.
So taking all this into account, what would be the best investment for a lens?

Probably the 28-105 for general use. Make sure you get the f/3.5-4.5 version though, NOT the f/4.5-5.6. They are not the same lens.

If you can stretch it, go for the Canon 50mm f/1.4 USM as well. It's MUCH better than the 50mm f/1.8 I mentioned before but it costs over 4x as much. You'll then be able to get your non-flash lowlight shots.

Make sure you get lens hoods. You'd regret it if you didnt. Protection from bumps as well as from flare.

Thanks alot. I'll look into both of those. I'll be selling my car before I leave so it may be possible to invest =P

Keep in mind that IS only helps on the camera end. Movement in the photograph is going to get blurred with IS or not.

Might I suggest a Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM and a 50mm f/1.8 kicker. The total will give you right at $500 including a very fast 50mm and a versatile 28-135mm with IS.

Since IS only helps with camera shake, and it PROBABLY won't be a problem in that focal length, I strongly recommend saving quite a few bucks on the zoom by going with the 28-105 I mentioned. It's sharper than the IS and has faster apertures. It's also about $300 cheaper, which could put you into the upgraded 50mm f/1.4 which is a much better performer in low light situations.

Rather than having a mediocre lens in lowlight and a mediocre zoom with IS in the daylight, you might as well get a stellar lens for lowlight and a good zoom without IS for daylight.

Some people end up selling the 50mm f/1.8 to upgrade to the 50mm f/1.4 anyway...so you might as well save yourself some troubles while away in Africa and get the good lens from the start.