$700 cash, what type of standard zoom lens would you buy?

I have $700 or a new standard zoom lens for my Canon 40d and I'm having trouble deciding which lens to buy. I was looking at several reviews for the canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM lens but that seems to be a little bit over my price range.

I was wondering what reliable and promising standard zoom lens would be best to buy. Ive had the canon 70-200 non IS before, but sold that recently because I really need a lens that is better for standard shooting and walk around shoot/people photography for my internship.

If anyone has any comments, suggestions, or advice, that would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

I just picked up Canon's new 15-85 and like it alot. It's right in your price range.

Sigma 17-50 2.8, hard to find now, but give it a couple of weeks.

Canon 28-70L f/2.8 if you're on that budget.

Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS (I'm waiting on reviews, and for it to be available in Canada)

$669

http://www.adorama.com​/SG1750EOS.html

If you're on a crop body, I would second the Sigma 17-50; looks like a killer lens (from the very limited stuff I've seen.)

What other lenses, flashes do you have? I might suggest a 50 1.4 and 85 1.8 if you're shooting portraits.

17-40 L

The IS and build of the 15-85mm canon option make it a winner.

Also consider the Sigma lens...
Or wait a few weeks and get the 17-55mm IS.

I say 17-55.
There's one in the F/S section for $850. I have seen the price for a used one ranges from $800-900. I think it's silly to not consider it because of such a small difference.

Tamron 17-50 + 85 1.8

oh wow. thank you for all the help.

so it seems like the majority would recommend either the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 or the 15-85. I
I looked at some of the reviews for both lens, and they seem like great walk around lens.
I really cant seem to decide on which one to purchase though.
Can anyone who has had either one of these please tell me what you like about the lens.

And the 17-55- is it really worth spending the extra dollars to get it or would one of the lens above suffice?

deekayy wrote in post #10376037
And the 17-55- is it really worth spending the extra dollars to get it

To me, yes! 100% worth it.

bagtagsell wrote in post #10376013
Tamron 17-50 + 85 1.8

This!!

70-200 not suitable for portraits?.. that's new..

I take it you're looking for something wider then.
Try a Tamron 17-50 + 55-250 and you should be covered