Another "What lens should I get?" question!

OK OK you have heard this story so many times but I need help!
It's the old story of which wide to standard zoom to choose to replace the kit lens.
Let me tell you what I have and what I would require from said lens.

My current setup:
- Canon 350D
- 18-55 kit lens
- Sigma 70-300 APO DG Macro
The lenses I have been looking at:
- Canon 17-40 4L
- Sigma 18-50 2.8 EX DG
- Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5 DG
- Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8 SP XR Di II LD Aspherical [IF] (out of breath)

I would mainly use it for landscape shots and by that I mean mountain landscape type shots. I am a hill/mountain walker
in the UK and the stunning views I sometimes see just have to be captured. Even if it just my benefit alone for that
perfect memory.

I have had a few digital compacts in the past from "fuji 2600 zoom" to G5 and have taken many many landscapes but
although they were a nice they were never really had the IQ and detail I wanted. Especially considering I would really
like to print out to A3 size to adorn my walls. So what I want is a lens that delivers sharpness and resolution enough
to produce the kind of put it on the wall and pick out the detail type quality.

The kind of photography I aspire to is the work of Colin Prior and to produce anywhere near his work would be my
ulitmate goal. I understand he uses large format cameras and expensive gear to produce his masterpieces and I don't
pretend this think I could match that kind of quality but I would like to get as near as I could.

I do not require a super wide and I feel the 17-18 is wide enough for the 1.6 crop sensor. Well for my needs anyway and
besides which I really would want to keep the a 2 lens solution. This being for reasons of lightweight and I know I
would end up not taking a shot just because I couldn't be arsed to get another lens out the rucksack.

Don't get me wrong I do also take other types of shots and would ideally love the lens to cater for all circumstances
but I know thats a little too much to ask.

What I have learnt so far:

Canon 17-40 4L - I know many of you will not hesitate to automatically suggest this lens. I know it has a huge following
and it is an L lens after all. One of the problems is that its a bit short and I really don't want to feel my self
needing that extra length in the middle of no where about the capture that once in a life time shot. Another is the
price of coarse. This would really really stretch my already choked credit card to the limits I shouldn't be in. I could
only do this if this lens was perfect for my needs and no other lens came close and from comparisons I have seen to the
other lenses I have mentioned. It seems it is not leaps and bounds ahead.

Sigma 18-50 2.8 EX DG - I have read many good and bad things about this lens. Mainly that it is sharp and contrasty but
suffers alot from CA and the corner sharpness is nothing to write home about. I also understand that like the other
choices in my list that it is a crop factor only lens. If I were to move to full frame later I would have to loose it.

Simga 17-70 2.8-4.5 DG - If only this lens was perfect. I mean look at that range...so..so useful. Although I have seen
a few fans of this lens. The images I have seen taken with it do not impress as far as sharpness is concerned. I have
even read that it is good for close up's but falls down for distant landscape shots. Which of coarse is no good for me.
Great low price but being the cheapest of the bunch offerinf the greater range this kind of raises alarm bells for me. I
find it strange to bring out a lens that can only be F2.8 between 17-20 as well. Why would you need it to be that wide
in that range?. Certainly not for portrait shots.

Tamron 17-50 e.t.c - I have again read mixed reviews and opinions of this lens. Mainly that it is sharp but suffers from
a lot of barrel distortion on the wide end and corner sharpness less that perfect.

I apologise to have droaned on for so long but I wanted you all to understand what I was looking for in a lens before
asking the question of which I should go for.

Thanks to all and your suggestions will be greatly appreciated.

Sie

arghhh, firstly i think its unfair that tamron gets so much crap for its naming - its simply tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 SP Di-II.

okay, moving on.

full frame compatibility? only the ef 17-40mm L will be full frame compatible. the others are all designed for aps-c cameras. so if you want a lens that can do both, the stop here. its the canon.

the sigma 18-50mm and tamron 17-50mm are basically the same lens. image quality shouldn't be that far apart. i think the main differences are the build and weight.

then the sigma 17-70mm which i think is quite a good lens though its not a professional range lens. the others are all L, EX and SP. the only reason why i wouldn't choose this personally is cause of full frame compatibility.

maybe you could check out the following link for more help:
www.photozone.de

Thanks for the reply.

I realise that the 17-40 is the only compatible full frame lens but this is not of huge importance to me as I don't see that kind of move being made for a long time yet.

Thanks for the link but believe me I have read every review out there for said lenses but although I know thier weaknesses I am still unaware of wether they will be good enough/not good enough for what I am asking of a lens.

Thanks

Sie

Sie

Have you considered the canon 17-85 ?? it would give the additional reach that you mentioned and is similar in price to the 17-40 therefore in your budget. Additionally it has image stabilising.

I cannot comment on the quality of this lens becoause I have never used it, maybe others can express thier opinions.

The 17-85 IS is a decent lens. It isn't the greatest, but it is a far cry from the worst. The advantage of it for the situation you mentioned is obvious. Nice and wide, but it has the extra reach if you happen across something at a distance. Add the IS and it makes this lens a serious contender. The 17-40L is a superb lens, but it is a bit short if you come on one of those circumstances you mentioned. I can't honestly recommend any of the other lenses on your list as I have no experience with them.

I have considered the 17-85. In fact it was the very first one I considered but I read bad points such as CA, distortion and sharpness problems.

Most of my landscape shots are with nice amounts of light and with the low light sunrise/sunset shots I am prepared to crack out the tripod to get it just right. So I cannot really justify the extra cost of the IS. For the same money I think I would go 17-40.

I keep finding myself swaying from one lens to the other. At the start of the week I was convinced the 17-70 was ideal for me then within a day I was on the virge of getting the 17-40. Then I stuttered before clicking the checkout button while looking at the big numbers by the pound sign. Last night I was swaying towards the siggy 18-50. I am really struggling with this.

I am wondering if anyone on here can say the magic words that will convince me to go in one direction.

Thanks

Sie

Personally I would Get the 17-40L, 50mm f1.8 and keep your Sigma 70-300.

Reason
1.Covers practically all focal lengths desired ( if you need 45 or 60 mm = use your feet )
2. Optimum for quality
3. Ability to move to full frame camera ( This time last year I had not considered a FF camera)

siejones,
I agree with triumph suggestion:
Get the 17-40L, 50mm f1.8 and keep your Sigma 70-300.
The 17-40L is excellent for landscape photos (to my eyes)

I feel myself swaying........