I think I'm going to go buy a new camera tonight, since I was able to sell my old camera on ebay over the weekend. So here is the kicker question to all you photographers out there: 17-85 f/4-5.6 IS or 17-40 f/4L?? I'm going to be getting the Canon 20D and I had assumed the kit lens would be a great starter/walk-around lens, but then when I was looking over their rebate forms I noticed that the 17-40 f/4L was similarly priced after rebates (to lens and body) Totals would be: 20D + 17-85 f/4-5.6 IS (kit) - $1699.95 20D + 17-40 f/4L - $1749.90 So my obvious question, which makes more sense as a general walk around lens? Is the 17-40 f/4L worth the $150? I experimented with acquiring cheap glass fast with my last camera and I decided this time I want to slowly acquire good glass. That said, I realize one is 'L' and the other not, but I have heard and tested the 17-85 IS and it's not that bad. So that said, as a sole lens for starters (since I'll not have money for this endevor for a second right now) which is suggested?