Canon 18-55 question...and more

I've used my 18-55 ever since I got it with my 20D ages ago.this may sound strange, but its the lens I have on the camera most of the time.
I also own the fantastic canon 70-200 F4, 100-400IS and the 10-22 lens.
I'm sure your asking why does he use this crummy little 18-55. Its just the other lenses to me are specialty lenses, as I suppose they all are, but I wasnt a good all around lens I can use for my types of images, which are land and sea scapes.
My other problem is Chromatic Aberation, and how to best cure it in Photoshop. I've tried dozens of settings for red and blue fringing, but can never ever get rid of it all, what settings do you use?
Ok the big question would be what lens should I go to that is similar to what I have, but better?
I've thought of the newer IS version of the 18-55 lens, which is similar in weight, or tamron's 17-50, which is heavier, and also the newer Canon 15-85 which is heavier still and expensive.I'd really like to consider the Sigma 17-70, but the horror stories I've heard about quality don't fill me with any confidence at all.
Opinions?

The 17-55 f2.8 would be the "best" upgrade, but also the most expensive. It is a great lens...can't think of anything that would be better in this focal range.

The new 18-55 IS is probably the cheapest option, but I don't think it would be optically much better than what you have now. Plus the front element rotates during focusing, so you wouldn't be able to use a CP filter.

I would consider the Canon 15-85, it has a great range and optics. It is a little pricy, but worth it in my opinion. I just picked one up for my wife's XSi, it does not feel as heavy as the specs make it sound, it is very well balanced.

I faced the same issue some time ago. Narrowed it down to the 15-85 and the Tamron 17-50 non-VC. Leaving aside cost, USM, and weight, the real issue is range vs. speed. Only you know which of the two is more important for you.

Bsmooth wrote in post #13303158
I'd really like to consider the Sigma 17-70, but the horror stories I've heard about quality don't fill me with any confidence at all.
Opinions?

Consider it. The horror stories are far, far, FAR overblown.

The 17-70 OS is a great upgrade from the 18-55, especially if you have the older non-IS version.

I've had the pleasure of trying 6 different sigma lenses, all of which worked perfectly well on my camera.

I can vouch for the Tamron 17-50 non-VC. Great lens at a good price (can get it for ~$330 used). If you're willing to spend a bit more, I'd suggest the Sigma 17-50 based off of reviews (comparable to the Canon at a much lower price).

Bsmooth wrote in post #13303158
I've thought of the newer IS version of the 18-55 lens, which is similar in weight...

This is what happens when the Canon 18-55mm image stabilizer lens is mounted on a camera and used to take pictures.

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

I've had the original 18-55, the 18-55 IS and the 17-55 f/2.8 IS.

Naturally, I use the 17-55 now, but I kept the 18-55 IS because it's compact and optically very good.

The 18-55 IS is a huge upgrade from the original 18-55, and not just for the IS. It's optically much sharper and chromatic aberrations are much better controlled. So is flare. It's an amazing lens for the price.

-js

The 18-55 IS is a great pack-in kit lens, honestly. I have to agree with JS, it's much better than the old non-IS version, even with IS off.

You can get them for a song on the sale forums, as people try hard to distance themselves from the "kit lens" sitgma.

I've been looking here in the for sale and over at the FM forums, so hopefully I'll find one soon. So far I've seen them for $85-100, although even new I think you can get them for around $140.