Better lens to start with 28-135 or 18-55?

I'm about to pull the plunge on a 40D at Costco due to ther generous return policy and their doubling of the original one year manufacturer's warranty. It'll also give me enough of a timetable until well into October just in case a 50D is announced and the specs appeal to me. I just noticed that at a location near me they selll an entirely different package then the one online.

The online version is
40D, 28-135, no name 4GB memory card for $1,149.99

The in-store version is
40D, 18-55 IS, 430EX flash for $1450 ish.

I've used the kit lens from the original Digital Rebel and the XTi, so I'm assuming that the newer IS performs similiarly but I have no experience with any other lenses outside of the kit lenses (at least in cameras I've owned, not counting lenses I've borrowed from friends). I plan on using either of the lenses that are included in the kit and possibly giving it away to my cousin when she goes back to Korea in September (She has an 400D, so I'm thinking the 28-135 will give her something new to try).

I do plan on getting the 17-55 when I give my existing lenses away to her and adding the other lenses that I'm looking at later to add some versatility (55-250, 10-22, 60 Macro, etc). I do plan on adding a flash, that's one of the reasons I see the in-store version being a viable possibility. Which would you recommend?

TMaG82 wrote in post #5879624
I'm about to pull the plunge on a 40D at Costco due to ther generous return policy and their doubling of the original one year manufacturer's warranty. It'll also give me enough of a timetable until well into October just in case a 50D is announced and the specs appeal to me. I just noticed that at a location near me they selll an entirely different package then the one online.

The online version is
40D, 28-135, no name 4GB memory card for $1,149.99

The in-store version is
40D, 18-55 IS, 430EX flash for $1450 ish.

I've used the kit lens from the original Digital Rebel and the XTi, so I'm assuming that the newer IS performs similiarly but I have no experience with any other lenses outside of the kit lenses (at least in cameras I've owned, not counting lenses I've borrowed from friends). I plan on using either of the lenses that are included in the kit and possibly giving it away to my cousin when she goes back to Korea in September (She has an 400D, so I'm thinking the 28-135 will give her something new to try).

I do plan on getting the 17-55 when I give my existing lenses away to her and adding the other lenses that I'm looking at later to add some versatility (55-250, 10-22, 60 Macro, etc). I do plan on adding a flash, that's one of the reasons I see the in-store version being a viable possibility. Which would you recommend?

What kind of shooting do you like to do?
If you like wide landscapes...you won't get that with the 28-135 on your crop body. No where close...unless you like moving around... alot. And as you move back you get all kinds of stuff in your frame you may not have wanted.
So the 18-55 is semi wider.

The other thing I and other friends have noticed is that the 28-135 is not particularly sharp...at least not compared to more expensive glass. For obvious reasons and cost is a biggie for the difference.

I have shot with both the original 18-55 kit lens as well as the 18-55 IS "newer" kit lens. There is a better difference.

You mentioned you would like to get the 55-250 IS.

The combo of the 18-55IS and 55-250IS is a nice two lens combo for the buck.

The 28-135 is sort of not wide enough and not long enough to cover a large range of situations. If it were a consistantly tack sharp model...it would be ok.
But for me ...it doesn't get used much for those reasons.

YMMV.

-rang

The online version is
40D, 28-135, no name 4GB memory card for $1,149.99

The in-store version is
40D, 18-55 IS, 430EX flash for $1450 ish.

You can get a 430EX for $250. So, 28-135 + 430EX from NewEgg. Save $50 minus NewEgg shipping. Start saving for a 10-22 after that. The 28-135 is a suprisingly good lense, built quality is not the best - but it blows away that 18-55 garbage. On my last trip to China, I took four smaller lenses, left the white cannons at home. The 28-135 did a good job and the IS works very well for handheld night shots. The 40D + 28-135 made my G9 seem like a total joke (took it on the previous trip).

Don't waste your time with the EF-S 55-250 f/4-5.6. Get a 70-200 2.8. I made the mistake of going the cheaper route. Wasted a lot of time with a POS lense.

mlav wrote in post #5879749
The online version is
40D, 28-135, no name 4GB memory card for $1,149.99

The in-store version is
40D, 18-55 IS, 430EX flash for $1450 ish.

You can get a 430EX for $250. So, 28-135 + 430EX from NewEgg. Save $50 minus NewEgg shipping. Start saving for a 10-22 after that. The 28-135 is a suprisingly good lense, built quality is not the best - but it blows away that 18-55 garbage. On my last trip to China, I took four smaller lenses, left the white cannons at home. The 28-135 did a good job and the IS works very well for handheld night shots. The 40D + 28-135 made my G9 seem like a total joke (took it on the previous trip).

Don't waste your time with the EF-S 55-250 f/4-5.6. Get a 70-200 2.8. I made the mistake of going the cheaper route. Wasted a lot of time with a POS lense.

Geez I hope you aren't referring to the 55-250 IS as a "POS lense".
Check out these shots from another thread:
http://www.flickr.com …l/sets/72157604​722061874/

Don't know the shooter...but in the hands of a good shooter...

Bang for buck I'd say it's a pretty good lens. Of course there are better but I don't think it's a "POS" and it is definitly nice for the money.

-rang

28-135 has nice creamy bokeh, otherwise it's rather mediocre.

However, you can sell it for $300 or so, then you may buy a better lens. Or even 18-55 IS (not a terrible lens from what I read) and be some $150 ahead.

"but it blows away that 18-55 garbage."
Wow, this lens doesn't deserve this kind of language.

I have used that 18-55 garbage you referred to for the last two years. I am very happy with the pictures that piece of garbge given me. I also find lots of beautiful pictures taken with these piece of garbage on the Internet.

I have a 24-105 L is and a 12-24 Tokina. When I travel light. I take this garbage lens witrh me instead of those two heavy lens. No complains with image quality.

if you shoot wide 18-55...if that's not a priority...i'd go with the 28-135...as far as the other lenses being a POS...maybe in build quality...however image quality is pretty nice if you check out the archives...

I plan on getting the 10-22 around Christmas time and while I could use a really wide angle lenses, I'm not planning on taking any trips to really warrant it at this point.

Most of the pictures that I take are of architecture (which I know wider can be used better), people (my niece is being born next week but I would probably get the nifty fifty on the cheap), some sports, and overall just general photography.

At this point I'm leaning more towards the 28-135 for two reasons. I've never used one but I've used the older kit lens extensively. And while I'm sure there's a noticeable difference, being a beginner I could see the 28-135 forcing me to be a little bit more creative and learn. And the second reason is that my cousin has a 400D with the kit lens and I am more then likely going to give this lens to her when she leaves and picking up the 17-55 at that time. The 28-135 would be a lot different from what she's used to and the 17-55 would be of similiar focal length to the 18-55.

I'd love some more insight though.

I'd go with the 28-135 for starters. it's a nice lens and will serve you well. You be glad you have that little extra reach with the 135mm side. I just recently sold mine and upgraded but loved it while I had it.