Inexpensive 40D "walk around"

Being a student is costly, so I'll have to cut back on expenditures.
Which of the following "walk around" would you recommend for a 40D?
I will compliment this walk around with a 10-20 or 10-22.

Here are the contenders:

17-50 tammy
17-70 sigma
18-200 sigma
(or is the canon 18-200 worth the extra $240)

Thanks

Can you handle $200 ($219 shipped) for a brand new (Cameta Camera) Sigma 24-60mm f/2.8 EX DG? Yes, this is a constant apreture lens.

Go here for much much more detail and images.

impressive, with the Microsoft crashback you can probably get them at 180 with shipping.

The quality looks great, thanks Jason.

Anyone else still feel free to post any further messages, and consider the 24-60 glass.

There are a few identical threads posted recently.

If you want to shoot landscapes 24mm will not be near wide enough.

The 17-50 tammy has had great reviews.

24-60 is definitely not a great range for a 50d. I'd recommend the sigma 17-70, or have a search for canon 18-200mm threads here, there are a few sample pics around these forums.

I have owned a Sigma 24-70 f2.8 EX DG and i wasn't happy with the image quality. For landscape, it is definitely not wide enough. So, if i were you, i will pick Sigma 17-70mm. Suitable for landscape, street/architecture photography, and some portrait.

He wants a lens to compliment a 10-2x.... I think something in the 2x-7x range makes more sense than something that goes to only 50.

+1 on the tamron 17-50

+2 on the Tammy as well. That was gonna be my alternate choice if I didn't pick up my 17-55

+3 on Tammy,,,had it and luved it but had to sell it when I went to 1 series.

i would almost say a 28-135IS lens...you can certainly get them for cheap now...and since you've got the 10-2X...who cares that it's not wide enough...it also gives you a little more reach than the others...

I'm surprised the 18-55 IS isn't on your list. Have you considered this?

DreDaze wrote in post #6503580
i would almost say a 28-135IS lens...you can certainly get them for cheap now...and since you've got the 10-2X...who cares that it's not wide enough...it also gives you a little more reach than the others...

+1

The 28-135 IS should be much better througout the range than the 18-200ish superzooms. Much less distortion, much less vignetting, much less CA and would be sharper.

The 10-22 / 28-135 IS combo would be very good together.

I would like to consider those with larger range.
Keep posting between:

28-135
17-70
17-50
and 24-60

Thank you all, I think I'm going with the 28-135 for the range.
I also found a pretty good package for it, lenses + 40D at $834