That being said. Are you planning on ever going full-frame? Because that's an EF-S lens, so if you ever upgrade to a full-frame body, that lens won't work… so it's important to keep that in mind… if you think you won't ever upgrade to full frame, or won't do it for another 5-10 years, then it might be worth it to save them money and get an EF-S lens now.

Also, for me, I like shallow depth of field and I like to open my aperture as wide as possible, and I'm often frustrated with the 3.5-5.6 range on the kit lens – and I believe the 17-85 is about the same (if not exactly the same? I don't have the specs in front of me).

The above two reasons are why I'm saving up for the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L lens. It's an L-series lens, so it should give me a sharper photo than a non-L-series lens, plus I can have my aperture at 2.8 for the entire zoom range of the lens. In addition, because it's an EF lens, if I upgrade to a full frame body at some point, the lens will still work. The biggest downside, of course, is the price – eek! it's got a smaller range, too, but since I already have a 10-22mm lens, I have the lower end covered.

The moral of the story is that you get what you pay for with the lenses – you're not going to get a fast, sharp, wide-range zoom lens for less than $1000, so you have to pick and choose what's the most important for you.

I know that wasn't much help, and I certainly suggest you ask for more opinions than just mine – I'm not a professional, and I haven't actually *used* either the 17-85mm or the 24-70mm (or any other lens in that approximate range), so ask around… Have you tried asking at, or search around the DPS Forums? The people there are really helpful and honest, and you might find someone who has that lens that can give you more input.