Canon Walkaround Lens?

I'm looking to replace the kit lens for my rebel XT and was wondering what you guys think of the different options that I'm looking at. I shoot both wildlife and landscapes while hiking around, so the versatility of both the Tamron 18-250 and the Sigma 18-200 OS are appealing. Both have decent resolution on photozone and the Sigma has added image stabilization at the cost of slightly lower resolution. I've also been looking at the Canon 17-85 IS. Anybody have experience with these lenses?

Based on what Klaus - the photozone.de guy - said in the forums of his site, I'd stay far, far away from the Sigma 18-200 OS. If you want a superzoom, the Tamron 18-250 is the way to go (or the Nikon 18-200 VR ).

However, in my opinion having two lenses to cover this range is preferrable unless weight/size/budget is a serious problem. Or as an alternative, use a superzoom to cover the "do everything" range and buy something more specialized for the ranges where you want higher quality (e.g. the Tamron 18-250 for walkaround + the Tokina 12-24 DX for serious landscape use).

Another alternative enjoying a good reputation is the Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5 DC. You might want to have a look at this lens.

As a Nikon user, I'm not all that familiar with the Canon offerings, but obviously you know the photozone.de reviews - they have always been very accurate for me. Good luck.

Basil

17-40 is a nice lense but I found the range limited. I have heard all the good things about 17-85 IS.
I personally will stay away from 18-2** kind of lenses.

I also have heard pretty good things about the 17-85 IS, i've never used one though :p
I use a 24-70 f2.8 lens as my main walk around, however you do miss out on the wider focal lenghts with this lens (i accumulate this with a 17-40 for my landscape work)

For a walkaround lens, I would favor a shorter telephoto. (Assumption: walkaround means not having to drag a tripod around, or in a situation where that just isn't an option.) In this case, I would look at the suggested 17-85 IS or the 28-135 IS as well. Optical quality aside, I just don't think anything in the 200mm+ range, when coupled with the 1.6 cropping factor, is going to get you consistantly sharp images handheld.

My "walk around" lens is the 17-40L. It may not have as long of a telephot as the 17-85 IS but the image quality far exceeds the 17-85 IS. Another good lens for 1.6x crop cameras is the 178-55 IS lens. Although expensive, the image quality is very, very high from that lens. The 17-40L is probably the best buy for the money and for a "walk around" lens on 1.6x crop body I don't miss the long end and almost always use the lens from 17mm to about 28mm anyhow.

Mike,
Good morning. While I am new on this site, at least for postings I will offer my info;
I have a Cannon XTi and the lens that I use 95% of the time is SIGMA ZOOM LENS 62 mm DG MACRO 28 – 300 1:3.5 – 6.3, I feel that it does a great job.
Most of my photos are wildlife of some form, then nature in general & what ever looks interesting.

Mike
I've been using 17-85mm IS since a year, it's an excellent lens primarily because it is IS. I've noticed it chromatic aberration at 17mm. However it's value for money since 17-40L is little expensive!
The other flip side of 17-85mm IS it is an EF-S lens. That means, if you're planning for an upgrade to 5D/1DMk* it won't work. It works for 400D/20D/30D.

I've nothing against 28-300mm lens as long as it's Canon. Take a look at Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS lens. It is really excellent. Though it's expensive, but it's pretty neat glass.

Gautham

Something that is satisfactory for wildlife AND landscape is tough.
For landscape, the 24-105 IS keeps me happy, if I am limited to just one lens.

For wildlife, I'd want something in the 400mm range, at the minimum.
I just don't run into much wildlife that is worth shooting at 200mm max focal length.
Well, OK, the marmots and Elk in Rocky Mtn National Park do cooperate, sometimes.