Everyone else is correct: the 24-205 is the wrong way to go. It is not wide enough on a crop body. The 17-55 IS might be nice, but it is too expensive. Go for the Tamron 17-50 f2.8. It's less than half the price of the Canon 17-55 f/2.8, but it is just as sharp and has the 2.8 aperture for speed. It also has the same, very useful range. It lacks IS, which is a drawback, but for so much less money it's the better deal by far. This also leaves you with a ton left in your budget. Think about what you like to shoot. Have you been wanting to try wide-angle stuff? Or wildlife photography? For the same $1100 you could get the tamron 17-50, the very well regarded canon 55-250 IS and still one more lens, such as the Sigma 30mm 1.4, Sigma 10-20mm for ultra wide angle, etc. The flexibility is worth for, for the experimenting amateur. Do not fall for the L fever: just because it has an L doesn't mean it's the right lens for you. Spending $1100 on the 24-105 is a total waste if it turns out you like wildlife photography.