Dfbb,
You've made some very sound decisions in your lens selection. You will find IS to be invaluable if you don't intend to shoot from a tripod all of the time, and you will be absolutely amazed at the extent to which your number of "keepers" goes up in relation to shots that you would otherwise discard from shake-induced blur.
You've also made two very good performance/flexibility/value choices and are superbly positioned for choosing an ultra-wide when the time comes. You'll find the 10-22 is exceptional in every regard, but it is pricier than similar offerings from Tokina, Tamron, and Sigma. The good news is that significantly outperforms them if you want to make the investment.
As for your comment about the 17-85 not being as fast as the Sigma 18-50, I'd advise you not to worry about it. In my experience, the times when you will find yourself wishing for a faster lens are almost without exception the very same times you would benefit tremendously from a prime, and the ability to zoom will be far less important to you.
The GREAT news is that these mid-range primes are available from Canon, Sigma and others at VERY reasonable prices, and you don't need L glass to get superb performance from them. While the 18-50 is fantastic, imagine the circumstance when you might prefer it over the 17-85. In that time and place, which would you prefer to have, the 18-50 f/2.8, or a f/1.4 or f/1.8 50m prime, or equally fast 35?
Once you build your compliment of zooms from which you can shoot with relatively few high quality lenses with the benefit of IS, you can really begin exploring the options of filling them in with well-selected primes for portraits, macros, and other creative shooting. In fact, while I've made the exact same zoom decisions as you, the only other zoom I added was the 70-200 IS, and that was SOLELY because of its usefulness in a specific set of circumstances, NOT because of how it related to my other lenses.
I think you've made very good decisions and are well on your way to a VERY satisfying arsenal.
Best,
E.
SOrry, I'm just starting this hobby. I have experience with the
standard 18-55 which I probably don't need to tell you about and
also the 55-200 USM II. That lens was focussing really fast
(although the Sigma is not that bad), but build quality was not
very good and I wanted more zoom.
I bought the Sigma because I want to have a good zoom, and add 1
general purpose lens which would be on most of the time. I'm
tempted by the Sigma 18-50 2.8 and the Canon EF-S 17-85 IS. The
Sigma is a great lens but would leave me with a gap between 50 and
80mm. The Canon has IS and makes a perfect couple with my Sigma
80-400 but is a lot slower than the Sigma 18-50.
'] http://filehost.to/files/2005-08-15_02/135921_0020_001.jpg[/img] [/URL]
