I am sick and tired of constantly compensating for the poor quality of the EF-S 18-55 that I got with my 350D. It's not sharp at all compared to my other lenses, it's slow (f3.5 at 18mm) and only performs near-decent at 24-35mm and at least F5.6. I know I could do so much better and hate to feel limited by the kit.
I have realised that I tend to use it for the 18-30 range often wanting to get even further away.

I have a 50mm macro covering a large amount of my portrait shots and of course macro work. I have a 100-300mm which is great at 135mm for portrait and a bit of nature and those lovely domesticated creatures one tends to have. The remaining mm's are more or less useless.
I need something with more width for indoor shots and architecture, plus snaps of the family. So...

I considered a prime, but the prices of a fast primes below 20mm are just ridiculous and I'm unsure if I would get the flexibility that I am looking for.
That aside, the Canon EF 14mm f/2.8L USM (http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=151&modelid=7300) is lovely and if money was no object, it would be my first choice. *dribbles and mutters unspeakable words of affection*

But, I am no millionaire and thus have to compromise and search for other options.
In that search, I have come across the Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC HSM (http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?navigator=6).
Plusses are price, price, flexibility and lots of width. Minusses are speed (only f4), possibility of getting a bad sample and waiting for a replacement and neither usm, L or Canon.

At the moment, if you hadn't already guessed, I'm leaning heavily toward the Sigma. However, I may have been blinded and can't see any alternatives.

Any ideas, thoughts, input, experiences? :confused:

The Tamron 17-35 XR DI F2.8-3.5? is very good. On a full frame camera it's not as good but on a reduced frame I think you would be hard pressed to get better. Compared to a Canon 24mm F2.8 (on a full frame) it is sharper in the middle and fuzzier at the edges at F8 and set to approx. 24mm.

Are you looking for wider?

The majority of wide angle lenses, even the Canon L ones are very poor optically. I rarely use my wide angle lenses as I cannot get the depth of field I would new and still get reasonable sharp pictures other than in the center.

I really like the 45mm TS lens though (expensive though)

Have you checked Fred Miranda for reviews?

The best wide lens made is the Contax 21mm Distagon. It blows everything else away. Not made anymore and very expensive now. Probably looking at 3-4000 US.

I'm hoping Zeiss will start manufacturing again with a generic or a Nikon mount.

My 350 is crop 1.6 so to get the width I would like I will need 20mm or less.
I looked at fredmiranda.com and the reviews of the Sigma are very positive other than the usual problem with QC on Sigma.

I have tried the old Canon 24mm f2.8 wide, but it didn't give me as much width as I would like.

I'll have a look at the tamron range...I hadn't considered them.

Thanks for your input:)

Are you mainly wanting to do panorama type images? (where you are cropping the top and bottom for example)

If so you might want to look into a panorama shift adaptor that mounts between the tripod and camera. Adorama in the states has a relatively cheap one. You would get way more detail this way.

If you want to do indoor achitechture you will need the new lens though.

I'm not on the panorama wagon, so it's mostly for indoor and outdoor architechture.

I have just read through a couple of reviews of the Tokina AF 12-24mm f/4 AT-X Pro DX and it might be closer to what I have been looking for. It's straight f4, which is quite nice and the price is the same as the Sigma.
Any thoughts?