3 lens choices which one would you choose?

It would still be good to know what type of photography the OP wants to do!

Without any other info though the 1.4 and flash gets my vote.

Dante King wrote in post #2134870
I cant believe more people are not voting for the flash and 50. having a flash is a real need. I am saddened people!

not only that but, its a first lens and having a 50mm prime is a lens everybody gets over time, im realy regreting not having one

Without more information it's hard to tell but for me it'd be between the 17-40 and the 50mm+580EX. I voted for the latter because of the flash - makes a huge difference and I get by without using my 17-85 rather alot, 50mm is a very useable focal length in a lot of ways. Not so much so for landscapes etc. and is only sometimes usable for a walkaround.

Having f/1.4 to play with is great fun though and a 50mm prime will never go astray

Sure... flash would be nice.... But you all ready got a little flash on the camera!!??

Main question is... WHAT is the purpose of the lens (what are you shooting)!

I have the 17-40 and do not recommend it. Since I got my 17-55 f/2.8 IS I hardly use it any more. If I was buying again I would save up for the 17-55 and skip the 17-40.

The 17-55 covers 50 mm, so you do not need a 50/1.4 unless you are doing low light shooting or need extremely shallow depth of field. I seldom use my prime lenses since I got good quality zooms.

I love my 10-22, but do not need a super wide angle that often. I would not want to be without it, but it would not be my first purchase.

17-40 ... plus the 75$ 50/1.8 !

That will give you both the versatility and wide angle of the zoom for 'general' shooting and a fast prime. You can upgrade to the 50/1.4 at a later stage without losing any money, if you don't buy the 50/1.8 too expensive to begin with.

You did not offer it as choice, but my walk-around lens is the Sigma 30/1.4 EX.

Best regards,
Andy

Dante King wrote in post #2134870
I cant believe more people are not voting for the flash and 50. having a flash is a real need. I am saddened people!

Is flash a real need?

I hardly ever use it but for macro work. If I was doing weddings or something I might use it, and I have used it for architectural shots to paint in light in high roof spaces on long exposures but other than perhaps indoor shots at family gatherings and even than I don't like it.

Thus I have a macro twin flash and have not bothered to get a conventional dedicated Canon flash although I do have a couple of flash guns from my old film system.

So like everything else it depends if the OP needs it. We don't even know if his camera has a popup flash, if he shoots lots of family etc.

How much do you have to spend.

If it not much and can only afford one lens the 17-85 IS is a great starting point

That's not really a choice, is it? All three options are radically different. That said, I love my 50/1.4, and would like a dedicated flash to replace the awful on-camera one, so I'd go for that. Best investment protection as well.

I found the 17-40 a perfect walkaround lens on my 350d and hardly used the 50. But I did get a 580 at the same time as the 17-40. That combo on a 1.6 crop is great. Save a few more pennies & get both but get the flash first.

Not knowing what you want to shoot, I would go with the 50 and the flash. Good lens and a great flash.

If you are new to photography, a prime a good lens to learn. I suggest getting cheap 50 (f.18version) + 17-40. Flash could come later.