Walkaround lens suggestions

Tamron 17-50, maybe Sigma 18-50 f2.8 macro.

Tamron 17-50/2.8 or the Sigma 18-50/2.8 or the Canon 17-55/2.8 IS

and/or

Sigma 30/1.4 or the Canon 35/1.4L

Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8. Very sharp, affordable, and has great color contrast!

by the way im selling mine. Here are pictures taken with it:
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/alas26/

ALaS wrote in post #4569985
Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8. Very sharp, affordable, and has great color contrast!

Fantastic lens.

Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5

Great lens - I got mine for £150 second hand last week.

Ben

I also recommend the Sigma 17-70. Nice and wide and a great walk around lens! I took some great Christmas photos last night with it.

I've been using my 28-135mm IS lens as a walkaround ever since I got it.

The two top lenses in this category are the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS. Each are fine depending on what you want. As pointed out above the Canon is expensive so if you are on a budget I would get the Tamron. You won't regret it. Only thing it lacks is USM and IS. Otherwise it is a fine lens with great color and sharpness.

Oh, you are right I would always take speed over IS. But when you can get both togther...its just oh too sweet.

You need to decide what your focal lengths should fall within. Most people will disagree with me (aside from waylandcool), but the 28-135 is my primary walk around lens. I find it's plenty wide enough and has great reach for walking around with the dog and shooting nature and such. Plus, if I shoot people I am usually at about 70-80mm. If walking around to you is more like shooting architecture and grafitti art for example, then I imagine you will need something much wider, but the 28-135 IS is perfect for me. I have a good friend that has the 70-200 mounted on his 350D all the time. It's all a matter of what you like to shoot.

JeffreyG wrote in post #4568620
I think the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is your best bet.

Fantastic lens for the money

I have both the Tamron 17-50 2.8 and the Canon 17-85 IS. I'm still trying to decide which one to keep, but I'm leaning towards the Tamron. Very sharp, sturdy but fairly light weight and compact. A great value.
The IS is a very nice feature on the 17-85, and I'll definitely miss it if I go with the Tamron. Try both.
Don't even look at the Canon 17-55 2.8. It's a killer lens.

I would say Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 it is around $400ish

28-105 f/3.5-4.5 II USM (the "Macro" model has 7 aperture blades, the "flower icon" has 5 blades, 7 has better bokeh) or the 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS are both great lenses. The 28-135 can be had cheap because of all the people with the 40D kits letting them go. The 28-105 should be cheaper. I got mine for $140 shipped with a hood, UV Filter and 512MB CF Card (which is crazy cheap for this lens). The lens is overlooked a lot... I've seen awesome reviews and terrible reviews of this lens. I like mine a lot, it's a great range, focus is quick, accurate and silent, and it's got great optical quality and build quality.

dino8031 wrote in post #4580813
I have both the Tamron 17-50 2.8 and the Canon 17-85 IS. I'm still trying to decide which one to keep, but I'm leaning towards the Tamron. Very sharp, sturdy but fairly light weight and compact. A great value.
The IS is a very nice feature on the 17-85, and I'll definitely miss it if I go with the Tamron. Try both.
Don't even look at the Canon 17-55 2.8. It's a killer lens.

I had the 17-85 and the 17-50 too.. I sold the 17-85.. then eventually sold the 17-50mm

I've shot with both 17-50 and 28-75, both tamron. They're both TACK sharp depending on your copy. But I have heard of people with soft copies. I'm glad I got a sharp one.

Still for sale too. (28-75)