Well, not really. I've basically made up my mind. I just need to run it by the folks around here who know WTF they're doing. Currently, I have: - Canon EOS 350D (Digital Rebel XT) - 58mm Circular Polarizer (Tiffen) - Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II - Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II I have a budget of ~$1,000 to buy a lens or two. I do a lot of indoor shots, so I want something really wide, but I'd like to be able to take shots of my sister-in-law's soccer games or do a little bit of nature photography in my back yard. I've settled on these: - Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM ($516 @ Amazon.com) - Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM ($588 @ Amazon.com) - A pair of 67mm Circular Polarizers I'm not crazy about the f/4L limitation on the pair, but I've made f/3.5 work pretty well and I don't foresee many of my telephoto shots being in the dark. Worst case, I'll be under good stadium/field lighting (which has done fine for me in the past). I think that the IS will help with possible low-light problems on the 17-85mm lens, since most of my low-light shots are of interiors, landscapes, or other still life. I either hand-hold those or grab a tripod/gorillapod. Easy. My question, then, is this: Is there a better pair of lenses that cover the same (or close to the same) focal lengths for the same money? Alternatively, is there a better ultrawide (at least 20mm) general-purpose lens for $500? I'd rather not use third-party lenses (call me paranoid) and I'm willing to sell either lens and save money for one of its faster counterparts (16-35mm f/2.8L and the 70-200 f/4L IS, f/2.8, or f/2.8 IS) if I need to. I just don't think that I need to. Not yet, anyway. Any discussion or insight is hugely appreciated. I've learned so much already just sitting quietly and listening to the chatter that goes on around here. Thanks.