Any lens that meets this criteria?

I assume you mean the variable aperture Siggy 17-70 f/2.8-4 - not the constant aperture 17-50 f/2.8.

Using the lens comparison tool at the-digital-picture, they seem to have roughly comparable image quality at equal apertures/focal lengths. The Sigma has the advantage of a wider aperture (f/2.8 at 17mm, f/4 at 70mm) at a greater range of FLs (17, 56-70).

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=5​&APIComp=3

So the question is whether you are unhappy with the IQ of the 18-55 - if so, the Sigma will not really offer an upgrade. If you are simply unhappy with the aperture and FL limitations of the 18-55, then the Sigma will indeed fit the bill.

I would highly suggest you determine what is driving your Gear Acquisition Syndrome - is it a desire for better IQ and shallower depth of field or better light gathering (so wider apertures to 2.8 is good, such as Sigma/Tamron 17-50, maybe the more expensive Canon 17-55), or is it focal length range (in which case also consider the Canon 15-85), or a combo (then the Sigma 17-70 may be a good compromise).

Although in the end you may end up with even more lenses as you get fully infected by GAS, it is usually wise to consider your most immediate needs.

Just tossing some options out there.

IMHO,

shinksma

The Canon EF-s 17-55 f/2.8 IS is a superb lens, and pretty much fills your criteria.
Here is a review of it:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …8-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
Its a superb lens, optically excelent, but a bit expencive.

The other alternative would be the 16-35 L (but that even more expensive)

NemethR wrote in post #16223508
The Canon EF-s 17-55 f/2.8 IS is a superb lens, and pretty much fills your criteria.
Here is a review of it:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …8-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
Its a superb lens, optically excelent, but a bit expencive.

The other alternative would be the 16-35 L (but that even more expensive)

If I was going for 16-35 I would probably have grabbed the new Sigma 18-35 F1.8 and in fact it's still on consideration on my evaluation of the Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4 I have just ordered. I'll have to do some comparisons against the kits lens at the same apertures and focal lengths to get a fair comparison though. The extra reach and low light capability of the Sigma 17-70 sounds intriguing.

If I am unhappy I will see about returning it for a good macro lens instead.


Here is one with the Canon 50mm F1.8

I bought a 17-70(older pre-OS) to use for underwater as it is one of the top mid range zoom for crop(when under water). I found that I loved it as a walk around lens on my 40D and the close focusing was a welcome feature.

It might not be a top performer topside but it sure seemed to do better for me than what I've heard from others.

Here's a bug shot, however not a good example of how close you can get.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/83602155@N04/9​560199682/

When taking photographs what is it that is holding you back and causing problems? What issues do you have with your images that the current lenses are not providing?

Experience is my guess lol. But really a good walk around lens with better focal lengths would be more suitable right now. The macro lens can come later if I think I need it.

I've just cancelled my order on the 17-70mm (Hopefully in time) as I did not realize there was another option for a good walk around lens. The Canon 15-85mm F3.5-5.6. OK it is not as bright as the Sigma but I think that won't be an issue in most circumstances for a walk around lens. I went and looked at the lens comparisons charts on http://www.the-digital-picture.com and found the 15-85mm had superior corners and edges at all focal lengths and better sharpness overall. This is not to say it will be the case if I get it but it's worth checking. Going by those tests the Sigma performed considerably worse at the corners and sides at 70mm (which will probably get the most use as I am shy).

It's all swings and roundabouts though really. A good F2.8 macro lens would be great for bugs and mid distance and portraits or occasional close encounters with birds or other critters on the move. But it would be strictly used on occasions where I know what I am going to shoot.

Looks like I will have to dig a bit deeper into my pocket for the 15-85mm.

EDIT: LOL now I am confused again.

http://www.flickr.com …iscuss/72157633​313077763/

EDIT2: I have come to a decision after taking my old kit lens out and trying a few things with it including close up tests with and without flash at various focal lengths and apertures. I am rather shocked to find that the kit lens is actually bl**dy good! Better than I realized and should have been THE lens I took along to the butterfly house. OK it would have had some depth of field issues but for butterflies which are larger insects 50mm with flash on closeups for low light and off where there is just enough light would have been ideal. In those situations edge sharpness is a non-issue as those are usually out of focus anyhow!

So what do? Well the macro lens is an option. A faster walk around with more zoom range would be nice but I don't see it as essential now. At least not at the cost of 'upgrading'. So I have decided to upgrade....

The body.

Why?

Well apart from wanting a better camera to fit the hand (450D has always been a bit small in my hand for me. Yeah I know a battery pack can help with that). There are much much better features and IQ to be had. Plus a massive increase in ISO performance (especially with the 70D) which should make up for any shortfalls in lens aperture - read light and speed - on the kit lens (excluding DOF obviously). Much better AF and a bigger sensor too (not so important for me).

At first I was thinking the 7D but the 70D looks more tempting at the expense of a little less protection, FPS and viewfinder (98% vs 7D's 100%). Oh and of course price and availability (70D is not for sale yet and will be pricier initially bringing down the price of the 7D). But if you want the latest and greatest etc....


Opinions?

Not a bad thought! You did seem to be drifting about the "sea of lenses" hoping for a breeze to push you one way or the other.

The XSi is a good starter body, but is a bit long in the tooth now (I had one back in 2008. I think 2008...). The new 70D does seem to be a very good contender, and while the 7D has a few AF modes that seem to be unique to that body, I don't think you'll hit that limit unless you are an avid BIF guy.

Don't let the 98% vs 100% viewfinder thing bother you - I honestly don't even know what my bodies have for that characteristic (probably less than 100%), and I don't sweat it.

The release of the 70D will not likely affect the current 7D pricing. An announcement for a 7DII would affect the 7D pricing...but is pure speculation at this point. And the 70D is now available in Australia, so it should be shipping in the US shortly...

Back to lenses for a bit: I had mentioned the 15-85 as a by-the-by, and it is indeed a good "next lens". I still use it on my T3i as a walk-about lens when I don't want to lug a bunch of gear around. And yes, the kit 18-55 is a really good lens. Especially for the price. It's just that the 15-85 is a bit better, optically, and has more FL range - but more $$. And the 17-55 is better optically and has wider aperture - but a lot more $$. And the 18-135 non-STM is optically similar but has much greater FL range, and the 18-135 STM may even be a bit better optically than the 18-55. Etc.

As always, IMHO, YMMV,

shinksma