Walkround lens

17-85, 28-135, or 18-200 are all good ones to look at

Personally I love my 24-105 and it is plenty wide for landscapes (for me) even on my 30D, but it is pricey compared to the other options.

From what I got from the original post:

1) Outstanding image quality isn't a "must-have", it just needs to be as good or better than the kit lens.
2) Budget is a big factor (not an "L" budget)
3) The main need is a big enough range to not have to change lenses often, mainly in the 70-100 range, but without losing the wide end.

If that does not scream for the Sigma 18-200 OS, nothing does. That is exactly what this lens was designed for, and it has gotten some stellar reviews thus far. Of course, if you don't want to change lenses at all, there is always the Canon Powershot.

I really like the 17-85IS.

namasste wrote in post #4133664
I know this lens doesn't get the press it should, but my little 28-105 is an awesome lens. You can get one for under $150 and it produces images that you'd expect from much more expensive glass. Very light and silent little lens as well. Might be a way to see if the 28 is wide enough before plunking down any serious loot.

I second this; it's an awesome lens; perhaps the best price to quality ratio you'll find from Canon (with the possible exception of the 85 f/1.8). At half the price of the 28-135, I'd argue it has better image quality, and it has really fast AF, and very sharp too! Best of all, it's really cheap. Make sure you get the 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 version, not the 4.0-5.6 version.

vic6string wrote in post #4136015
From what I got from the original post:

1) Outstanding image quality isn't a "must-have", it just needs to be as good or better than the kit lens.
2) Budget is a big factor (not an "L" budget)
3) The main need is a big enough range to not have to change lenses often, mainly in the 70-100 range, but without losing the wide end.

If that does not scream for the Sigma 18-200 OS, nothing does. That is exactly what this lens was designed for, and it has gotten some stellar reviews thus far. Of course, if you don't want to change lenses at all, there is always the Canon Powershot.

You have pretty much summed up what im after - probably better than i did!

I know that L glass is the muts nuts when it comes to image quality but i just cant afford it ( or justify it to myself) at the moment so i am only looking for that one step up the ladder and not the jump all the way! So long as its not really soft image wise i think the 18-200 sounds just the ticket.

Judging by reviews, the 18-200 doesnt have many huge problems except in extremes ie wide open at 18mm - really cant see me taking to many landscapes at f3.5!

Think i might be handing over some money at the weekend for the 18-200 OS and i might just have enough to buy a flash unit im thinking of as well!

vic6string wrote in post #4136015
From what I got from the original post:

1) Outstanding image quality isn't a "must-have", it just needs to be as good or better than the kit lens.
2) Budget is a big factor (not an "L" budget)
3) The main need is a big enough range to not have to change lenses often, mainly in the 70-100 range, but without losing the wide end.

If that does not scream for the Sigma 18-200 OS, nothing does. That is exactly what this lens was designed for, and it has gotten some stellar reviews thus far. Of course, if you don't want to change lenses at all, there is always the Canon Powershot.

Think you hit the nail on the head, wasn't thinking earlier, 17-85 or the 18-200 OS, I've seen favorable reviews on both, but have shot with neither....If I wasn't concerned too much with IQ and I didn't want to change lenses I'd mount the 18-200 OS, good for static subjects in low light and a decent walkaround outside in good light.

Had the same issue with my wife's lens changing sagas .. so I picked her up a Sigma 18-200 len. She loves the versatility of that lens (it lives on her XT) It has the reach she needs and is still good for landscapes. I like the fact I don't have to keep cleaning the sensor on her camera any more