Fill gap between 17-40 and 70-200

I need a high quality lens to replace the Canon 24-85f3.5 (light but flimsy) for my 10D.
I know that the most popular options seem to be the Canon 24-70L (expensive, heavy), the Tamron 28-75 (different layout to Canon, hard to find), Sigma 24-80 (large filters, heavy).
Has anyone tried the newer Sigma 28-70 EX (67mm filters, light weight)? This appears to be a good match for the 17-40L and 70-200L which I already have. Test reports seem scarce on this lens. From the Sigma website it appears to be very similar to the highly praised 24-70.
I'd be grateful for any comments.
BTW I'm an amateur interested mainly in family pictures,travel and landscapes.

As you already have the superb 17-40 and 70-200 lenses, keep them both and fill the gap with either a 50mm f1.8, or f1.4 or even the 50/60mm Canon macro lens (which would complement your landscape work). Why are you considering another zoom which will duplicate certain focal lengths of your zooms?

Barry

You have point, but that zone between 40 and 70 is often appropriate for small groups and portraits...a zoom with a large aperture would be useful. But I'm also considering other options similar to those you mentioned...50/1.4, 100/2.8 macro etc.
Thanks for the advice,
James.

Sorry, should have emphasised that both zooms are f4!

Get a nifty fify, cheap and will do more then enough.

I'm with Persian-Rice. Maybe you need a prime. 50/1.8 or 50/1.4

Opinion so far is clearly on the side of the primes. I'll check out a few of the options. I think aiming for an eventual combination of the 50f1.4 and 10f2.8 macro would a flexible solution for portraits, lansdscapes and close-ups. The wide apertures are a particular concern as both my current zooms are f4. I'd be grateful for any further advice. Thanks for the replies.

I have the 17-40 and 70-200 f4 lenses and am considering the Canon 24-70. The main reason being that yes, there is overlap, but it is of a higher speed and suits the general purpose category very well. My main use of the wide angle is architecture and scenes, where the 24-70 would be my point and shoot lens if I can call it that.

The range of 24-70 is very much the general purpose area and of a reasonably high speed and excellent quality. The Tamron 28-75 gets reviews as the main competitor with a much more reasonable price tag.

Primes are ok and I am looking to move more into them, but they require planning. For grabbed family pictures, zooms are great. I have a 85mm prime, but will only move to it where the family are in a confined space or in low light. It's horses for courses, but I need something in the 50mm area and feel a 24-70 would stay on the camera more. Eventually I will buy a 135mm prime plus 1.4x extender and retire the 70-200, but for now I am covered.

It really helps to use the lenses you have as much as possible and bear these issues in mind to evaluate your needs.

It's like clothes, everybody has different needs.

Graham

Your looking for same lens as I. Need something between my 15-30 and 120-300. Stuck between cannons 24-70L and sigmas 18-70EX. My other sigma EX lens seem to do fine, but I'm no expert.
Hope to compair in store befor purchase.

Adorama special Sigma 28-70 2.8 EX $275. Helped my decision out a bit.

I was in the same position as you guys. I decided to go with the 50/1.4 which I am very happy with. The 50/1.4 is a superb prime and in my opinion it's very good for both portraits and landscapes. However, if you don't already own a macro lens, consider the 50/2.5 macro which will give you more flexibility.

50 1.4 and/or 85 1.8

my two favorite lenses...

I find overlapping focal lengths of zoom lenses nice. Example, the 17-40L f/4 and the 24-70L f/2.8. I find myself in certain situations where I want the range and don't wish to change lenses when I do. Why not the 16-35L f/2.8 instead of the 17-40L? Better but too expensive for me.

I filled the gap with the Tamron 28-75 since I wanted a faster lens than what I had before I bought the 17-40 and 70-200! I really like my 28-75, it makes for a great walk around lens, reasonably fast and very sharp!

i personally like the 17-40 more than the 16-35...i just dont like being stuck at f4 in crummy light