I'm pleased to say that I bought my EOS-10D and 24-85 F3.5-4.5 earlier today. When I went into the shop to buy them I was sit undecided on which lense to buy.

My choice was forced, because they didn't have a 28-135 in stock...

...I was already leaning towards the 24-85 anyway, as it covers the same range that I am used to. I also tried the Sigma 16-35, but the auto focus was just so much faster on the Canon.

Ok, question for Mark here.

I haven't done too much playing with my camera/lens yet, but even so I am beginning to wonder whether I have made a mistake with the lens. Coming from a non-SLR background I am at the moment very reluctant to resort to a tripod.

I am also not very good at avoiding camera shake when handheld at much below 1/90th of a second. Taking photos outside today (it was somewhat overcast) I wasn't often able to go as fast as 1/90th, so most of the pictures suffered from at least some degree of camera shake. Most of the shots were with the lens wide open.

Would the IS on the 28-135 have bailed me out in these situations ? How low a shutter speed would I get away with with the IS in these sort of conditions ?

How much would a monopod help me ? (I think I'd be more likely to use a monopod than a tripod)

I guess when I get the 20mm f/2.8 it will be useful in these sorts of conditions ?

Do please tell me if I'm just being naive or silly

On a plus note, the pictures that I didn't blur are beautiful. I can't get over how wonderfully smooth and detailed the images are. I am very impressed with this camera.

P.S. I know I have a lot to learn, for instance it has occured to me that all my shots today were at 100 ISO, so I guess I could have helped myself by using 200 or 400 ISO.

P.P.S. Why doesn't the 10D have the ISO value permanently displayed on the LCD display ? Seems like a silly omission to me, every other important setting is there.