Originally posted by anselesn Thank you all. Very helpful replies. I hadn't considered the sigma 17-50, I guess because I was hoping to get enough back from the 35 macro ltd. so as not to need to spend anymore on the new lens. But given the thoughts above, perhaps it is worth the extra to get 2.8 through the full focal range. Thanks again.
I am not a huge proponent of 'fast glass' myself, but no doubt it's nice to have. I have not tried any of the f/2.8-all-the-time zooms so defer to others on the wondrous nature of those optics
I tried several options in the kit-lens range and am satisfied that for my needs an 18-55WR is sufficient. The main issues with my kit lens are 'slow glass' + distortion, and for me compact + WR are more important. I tried Sigma's original 17-70 and their 18-50 f/2.8-4.5, and DAs 16-45 and 18-135; each had pros and cons, but IQ among all was very good and often too close to call. Of all those I liked the 16-45 best.