People say the 18-55 kit lens is crap, but I shot most of my microstock portfolio with it before I "treated" myself to the 50mm!

I found it fine, especially if you're still learning.  Use the lens within it's limitations.  You're never going to shoot low light or action with it.  That's why you're buying the 50mm.   

The 17-85 f4-5.6 maybe? Most people start whit ... about 650$ depend where you are

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_17-85_4-5p6_is_usm_c16/

Quite good and not too pricy lenses:

Sigma 17-70/2,8-4 macro
Sigma 18-50/2,8
Tamron 17-50/2,8
Tokina 16-50/2,8

Very good but pricy:
Canon 17-55/2,8

Congratulations on the 20D. I am still using mine and it is a great tool!

it depends all on what you want to shoot. Ok you want:

• a good all around lens
  
• that gets wide but
• also has a bit of a zoom to it
• Something I can shoot architecture and landscapes with,
• as well as the occasional portraits.

I would not buy one lens for that. Wide (on a 1.6 crop body) + portrait does not work very well. You will need 17-85 or a even larger range. These lenses are not necessarily the best (optical) quality.

The best option might be a Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4.5 DC MACRO. Check the reviews. I like the 24-105 F4L, but it is not very wide on a 20D and also costs 1,000$.


Below are a few of my personal (!) preferences/ thoughts on lens selection.
Cheers.


1) Nowadays I would not buy a lens anymore, which does not work on a full frame (FF) body.  Like the Canon EF-S lenses. A good lens you can keep a long time. And sooner or later you might want to upgrade to FF.

People say good things about the 17-50 2.8 Tamron. But AFAIK this one does not work on FF?!

1000$ for a 17-55 EF-S? Not for me, thanks.


2) In general it depends all on what you want to shoot and your preferences: zoom (=convenience) vs. prime (=better image quality/ better low light performance, lower price).

With three Canon primes you can get excellent optical quality: 35mm F2, 50mm 1.8 and a 85mm 1.8. Built quality is similar to the 50mm you have. But hey, these are between 80$ and 330$.

However, if you do microstock (MS) �semi-serious�. You will be able to afford pretty much �any gear� from the earnings.

3) Also I would not buy �medium or low quality� lenses. Sooner or later you are going to sell them to get something better. And if you do MS you will need good quality lenses.

I am not a fan of the Canon 17-85. I used it and was not very happy. I did not have/ use the Tamron 17-50 2.8 or the Sigma 17-70, but from what I read, these are better lenses. Again, all not FF.


4) For shooting MS I would recommend a macro lens (for objects etc) eg Tamron 90mm 2.8. Can be used for portraits too. Check the reviews and compare with the sigma 105mm and Canon 100mm macro.

And a 24-105 F4L. I find this lens very convenient. For MS most of the stuff I shoot is >F8. However, if you want to shoot sports (espec. indoors), wedding, kids at home etc., this lens would not be your best choice.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-28-135mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

What about this one, the Canon EF 28-135 IS?  Seems like a decent all around lens, and it has IS.  It's going to be as wide, though as the EF-S 18-55 IS.  BUT, it goes around around $250 used on ebay.

I'm starting to think that I should just get a decent all around performer, and not waste another $80-$100 just for the 50mm f1.8

A must have for any Canon buyer is a genuine 50mm f1.8 for about $US80.

Here is a new one..seems relatively cheap - the Canon EF-S 17-55 IS

http://cgi.ebay.com/CANON-17-55-MM-LENS-IS-USM-LENS_W0QQitemZ220216434521QQihZ012QQcategoryZ78999QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Wonder if it performs better than the newer EF-S 18-55 IS?  (the one kitted on the new Rebel Xsi)

If you want a lens that will work good for a while, the kit replacement 18-55 IS is supposed to be pretty darn good, especially the price.  It surely is no L, but is also is way better than the old kit lens, and I've heard the street price is less than $200.00, not a bad deal for any lens, it at least is as good of a performer as the 17-85, but much cheaper, the price is low enough to justify a virtual "throwaway" when/if you upgrade to FF (or EF-S becomes obsolete).  The 50mm is definitely more versatile than it seems, to me zoom is kind of overrated, generally I use one end or the other, rarely do I ever use it somewhere in between, which means that a zoom is nothing more than 2 ultra slow primes in one package that never needs to be changed.  Adding an extension tube (which aren't that $$, about $100) can turn a 50mm into a decent macro lens too, and they would work on all lenses, giving every lens you own macro capability.

If you want a lens that will be with you forever, the 17-40L is a great lens.  I just got it not too long ago and love it, paired with a 50mm and a 70-300, my set basically covers all focal lengths pretty good (sans the superwide, but on a FF the 17-40 is a superwide).  At $600 it is the cheapest of all the good FF zoom lenses, if I am not still using it a decade from now I will be shocked.

The lens you are probably looking for is the Tamron 28-75mm 2.8  That is my midrange lens and I couldn't work without it.  It's super fast, light, gets some decent close ups (not true macro - 100m 2.8 for that).

This tamron isn't super cheap at $330 and you'll still need a wide (18-55mm kit lens for $60 or less) but it's definitely the best lens in the mid-range, low-ish price.  I have 3 of them here - mine, Sarah's and a backup.  It's the only lens we have 3 of so far (two 50mm 1.8, two 18-55, two 70-200 IS, one of everything else) but we couldn't possibly shoot without this lens on hand.

M

Cool, new equipment always makes me giddy.  Shootin' the dogs indoors was one of the first things that I tested my 50mm with, given some window light it is fine, but with lamps, unless I'm using a high ISO (super rare) I can't HH the 50 indoors.  The 1.8 is an adjustment though, with my dogs I have to choose, eyes, or snout, at 1.8 I get one or the other, not both ('twood be easier if I had a Pug ;-)).

I was really, really, really torn between the 17-40 and the 10-22, eventually deciding on the 17-40 because I'm going to get a FF with my next camera purchase, I'm basically saving every penny made from MS sites for it.  It is kind of a race (knowing that a XT's shutter is good for about 50,000 clicks), which happens first, either save enough for the 5D replacement, or the camera gets past 45,000 clicks and I order a 5D.  It'll be close given the rate of income growth and projections of it (realistic) and the shooting rate that I'm maintaining.  At the pace I'm at right now (and have maintained all year), I'll be right at about 50000 shots at this time next year, it was hard to justify to myself getting a lens that would last me at most a year, at the same price that I could get the L which will seemingly last forever.  I do love the wide shots, but since my widest lens has been a 50 for as long as I've had my SLR, 17mm is plenty to keep me sated for the time being, and on a FF the 17-40 is basically the same lens as the 10-22, just a bit longer.

My next lens though, that will complete my collection is the 100mm f/2.8 macro.  After that all that is left is to begin upgrading the individual lenses (50mm and 70-300).

The OP probably bought a lens a couple years ago shortly after this topic was posted.