Yet another lens question

[RikWriter]

Okay, I have a DRebel and bought it with the kit lens. I took that lens, a Canon 80-200 cheapo and a Phoenix 100-400 on my recent trip out west. While I got some damned good pics, I also came to the conclusion that I didn't REALLY like any of the lenses I had.
I bought a Sigma 12-24 EX while on vacation and tried it out the last couple days of the trip. I LOVE it, and am glad I bought it.
I am in the process of buying a lightly used Canon 70-200L USM f4 lens for about $500 and from what I have been told, this is a very sharp telephoto---I couldn't and can't afford the 2.8 unfortunately.
The question becomes inbetween 24 and 70.
I need to find a good, clear lens in that range and I doubt I can afford the Canon 24-70 or 28-105 Ls, though I will keep my eyes on ebay for a good deal on a used one.
Which lens would best fill this void at a price of $500 or under?
Also, would the Canon 17-40L USM be worth getting seeing as how I am pleased with the 12-24 Sigma?
TIA

[ron chappel]

Or you could get the awsome 50/1.8

-or even go without!
....Let's face it-anything between about 35mm and 70mm in the film focal lengths (about 20-45 in digital) gives dead boring perspective anyway :?
I've heard of a great many photographers only ever using a wide zoom and a long zoom.
Yes,yes,i know-you can get great pictures from the normal focal lengths,we hear that argument all the time.But you can get the same picture with the wider or longer lengths anyway and it may even look better!

But of course with the low price and very high image quality you can get from the 50/1.8 -and the fact that it's a great portrait/low light lens makes it silly NOT to get one

[RikWriter]

I do plan on getting the 50mm 1.8---as a matter of fact, I have a bid in on one now. But I was thinking of something a bit more versatile. You don't think something between 24 and 70 is needed? (Aside from the 50 Prime I mean.)

[hmhm]

I need to find a good, clear lens in that range and I doubt I can afford the Canon 24-70 or 28-105 Ls

The 28-105 isn't an "L", and doesn't cost that much. The 28-135 isn't an "L" either, but costs a bit more than the 28-105, but has IS.

Before we can recommend a replacement for the kit lens, maybe you can tell us what it is you don't like about the kit lens? In other words, what's the shortcoming we're trying to address?
-harry

[RikWriter]

Before we can recommend a replacement for the kit lens, maybe you can tell us what it is you don't like about the kit lens? In other words, what's the shortcoming we're trying to address?
-harry

Clarity mostly, around the edges of the picture when you take one out at the 55mm end.

[Cadwell]

Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di. $349.95 new from B&H.