18-200 just is an good option to consider.
Since u could afford a 40D, why not go for a 18-200 as well.

Buy 18-85 IS is more suitable for the one who first time own DLSR
I think you need the IS function to take sharp photo and it's easy to store and more convenience during travelling
outstation.

The Sigma AF 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS has Optical Stabilizer which is a similar technology to IS.

It's a better traveling range as it fits wideangle and telephoto.

My vote goes to body + 18-200mm Sigma OS

This post has been edited by calvin_gsc: Oct 10 2007, 10:38 PM

i am using Sigma 18-200mm OS...
it is very good lens... but very heavy too...
but i still vote for Sigma 18-200mm OS

yeah...i think when it comes to range wise...18-200 definitely beats the 17-85, do u have any sample images taken with this lens?maybe can share up a little bit to check it's quality...

I recommend getting the EF 17-40 f4L instead of those two. Colour and contrast won by 17-40 f4L hands down I think. Or just get a 50mm f1.4 and a 35mm f2. If I had your budget and with hindsight, I would've gotten those two primes with my 30D last time =)

The 30D is my first SLR/DSLR. Nothing special about it. Tons of people get 5D as their first SLR and I won't be surprised if there's people who got 1D/1Ds series as their first. If you can afford it why not?

Just wan to answer this last part: is OS/IS very important for a first timer DSLR

No

Why? I assume that this is your first SLR camera, so my apologies if I assume wrongly. I do not think its a good idea to get a IS/OS/VR lens on your first try coz it makes the user lazy to learn how to control his or her body. Better to learn how to use a non-IS lens now then later. Learn how to take a picture without shaking or at least keep it to a minimum.

And if anybody wan to ketuk me for this.. i dont deny it. I am very old school. And proud of it

let's consider the price of EF 17-40 F4L vs Sigma 18-200mm OS.

it really depends on the user. fine if you're willing to cough up more and have only 17-40mm range BUT having great picture quality.

i believe most people prefer to spend less, cover more distance + OS and of course, usually their picture is going to be resized for screen display.

actually, i heard that Ken Rockwell usually use his 18-200 VR almost of his travel ^^
not absolutely because of OS, it;s because of Canon don't have any 18-200 IS in their system ^^

Try to compare the pics quality of both lens if you can. Specs wise, Sigma lens definitely will be more worth it (if not how to beat Canon!!)

But if the quality is not as good as Canon, better go for a better quality lens, even if both states they have IS or OS. Afterall, not often you will go up to 200mm.

As for 17-40mm, not suitable for your first lens, unless you have specific usage for it. I believe quality wise will be better (L-Lens worrr...), but not practical as your prime lens unless you need it.

OP considered the 17-85 IS which is not that far off in price compared to the 17-40 f4L.

I wonder why 17-40 is not a suitable 'first lens'. Canon offered the 18-55mm as a kit lens from the 300D onwards. How much difference is it in focal length? 17-40 would make a great walkabout lens, it doesn't have that tiny extra reach but I believe it makes up for it in quality (build and picture wise).

the long range is always good at times

As I said, quality wise no question about any Canon L-lenses. But 17-40 alone may not be sufficient unless you have a specific purpose for it. Especially for travelling, having in hand a 17-85 with IS will be really good.

the 17-40 F4 L is a good walkabout lens. YES, It does not meet all needs, but its compact and also built like a tank. Plus its the lightest L Lens in the series. 17-85 IS is a good choice, for the short term.....

i have tried 17-40 and the sigma and i end up buying the tamron 17-50 and a 50mm 1.8..

u should get these 2 lens.. they are sharp and the apature is good thus u can shoot under dim conditions