Rob,

Thanks for taking the time to reply both in word and exapmple images.

Nice shots, btw.

Jay

What my small section of the collected brain knows is:
Your next lens purchase will not be your last; relax and enjoy the hunt.
Your compromises will not match others'.
If you don't mind swapping lenses for various requirements, single F/L
lenses usually are faster and sharper for a given F/L.
If covering an extensive range of F/Ls without swapping is more
important to you, you will likely sacrifice image quality and "speed".
If I could afford them (and was strong enough to carry them) I'd have
one each of my favorite single F/L lenses with a camera attached. As it
is, my bag is bordering on impossible (keep in mind, I'll always have
the 20D and one lens in hand, so subtract one from this array):
10-22, 18-55, 50 1.8, 24-70 L, 70-300. Aha! you say, why carry the
18-55? Because it is so light and compact, and in ordinary circumstances
makes people's faces look very nice, and in extraordinary situations
(sand, salt spray, dust storms, _etc._) is a smaller potential loss.
The order in which I would I sacrifice the lenses may give you another
way to view your question (this is *hard*):
Good-bye 18-55, then 50 1.8, I've got you covered, mostly;
Adi?s 70-300, I may have to move quite a bit, but one way or another I
should be able to get closer;
Do svedanya, 24-70?wait! Not really. Do I have to? No!
If I get to keep two lenses (that's where we are now, right?) for my
daily sustenance, there they are:
10-22 and 24-70. If the 24-70 happens to be an 18-55 for the present, so
be it.
Certain weekends and challenges will be even more challenging without
the long lens, maybe not even worthwhile (I like auto racing
photography, but I'm learning that I do the close-in things better, even
though I desperately _want_ to be good at the high-speed distant stuff).
Plus which, I'm a bit of a cheater: I have Mr Nikon's CP8700 and
teleconvertor (~420mm) in the bag, too.

Everyone's lens need vary based on what type of photography they
generally do. I think the 28-135mm IS lens is a great choice for
general photography because on the 20D it is a 46 -216mm and covers
most normal shooting except wide angle. The lens is excellent in terms
of image quality and the IS lets you shoot a few stops less in low
light and still get good results. That plus it's not as expensive as an
L lens.

Art Salmons
Fleeting Images Photography

I hope you are aware that the 10-22 is an EF-S lens so will only work
on 300D and 20D. Should you upgrade to a 35mm full-frame sensor based
Canon dSLR in the future, your investment in the 10-22mm will go down
the drain.

- Siddhartha

Jay (my apologies - I missed your original post as I've only just discovered
this newsgroup)

First question would be - what sort of photography do you do?
Next - what budget do you have?

I have recently switched to a Canon 20D (having been a previous 10D owner -
which I've kept as a spare body) so already had a set of lenses I acquired
with the 10D. For what it's worth here are some real life comments...

Currently the best lens for all round flexibility and quality would have to
be the Canon EF 70-200 2.8L IS USM (equivalent to 112-320mm with the 20D's
1.6 multiplier). This is a truly superb lens & would be my first choice no
matter what camera body. Having had the previous non-IS version the IS has
been a revelation allowing one to capture shots previously impossible
without resorting to a tripod - brilliant! The lens has hardly ever been off
my camera body. I have used it in combination with both the 1.4x II & 2x II
Extenders and have found the former utterly brilliant and the latter
excellent.

I also have the 24-70 2.8L USM (= 38-112mm) which is a beautiful - if
heavy - piece of kit. If it was possible to get this same lens in an IS
version it would really be the basic 'all purpose lens'.

To get down to the old 35mm wide angle equivalents I found it necessary to
go for the 17-40 4.0L USM (= 27-64mm) - I was sorely tempted by the 16-35
2.8L USM (being an addict of extra light) but was somewhat underwhelmed by
the reviews of the lens when fully open (which let's face it - if you're
going for f2.8 you obviously want to be able to use it fully open!).

These 3 lenses replaced my previous set-up of  28 (2.8), 35-105 (3.5-4.5),
50 (1.8) & 80-200 (2.8L) lenses.

I can safely say that the most worthwhile quality are the Canon L lenses -
the quality difference is immense - especially when wide open - (& well
worth the money if you can stretch to them). The second as mentioned
previously, is the new second generation IS function (when available). I
would not swap L quality for IS but would always go for it (if available in
an L lens).

I bought in this order:

EF 55-200mm    (sold, not a great lens)
EF-S 10-22mm
EF 100mm 2.8 Macro
EF 35 2.0           (use this a lot for mtn bike rides, but may switch it
with the EF 50 1.8 because it's much lighter)
EF 70-200L 4.0
Tamron 24-135    (this is the lens that I leave on the camera, much nicer
than the 18-55 kit lens which I still keep for hiking because the Tamron is
big and heavy)

GT

Helen Edith Stephenson notes:

recourse to an 18-28 on a full-frame 35mm film camera:-) To date, since

getting the *ist DS, I haven't actually used a film SLR, though.<<

Funny how that works. I sold my 35mm gear not too long after I got my
*istD. I've got a friend who is now looking into digital, and he's
really affronted by the prices he will get for his very heavy
collection of very good Nikon bodies and other gear, but he knows film
gear is not going to rise in price. I got my *istD with the 16-45, and
have added a 100mm macro and a 24-70. The 16 is wide enough, I guess,
at an equivalent 24mm, though I'd kind of like to be able to afford a
12-24 or something similar for tight shots inside vehicles, and similar
things. Later for that. Right now, I'm thinking of the Pentax 100-300
cheap version to try some bird photography. Maybe the next check that
isn't needed elsewhere.