I've been reading the forums for quite a while and I've searched through a lot of the earlier posts. What a wealth of information! But I have a question that I'm just not finding an answer to and I'm looking for some help and opinion. I guess I'd classify myself as a serious hobbyist. I'm no pro. But I'm not shooting snapshots for scrapbooks either. I'd like to be able to mount, frame and hang some of my stuff as art for my own enjoyment. We travel quite a bit and my shots can range from open beach or mountain scenes, to the interior of a cathedral, etc. I'm shooting a Canon EOS XSi. I have the Canon kit lens 18-55 IS and I have a Tamron AF28-300 with VC. I'm looking at getting a new lens, but I'm not sure which gap needs filling first. I'm considering an ultra wide angle to fill shorter focal lengths. Sigma 10-22, Tokina 11-16, Tokina 12-24 f4, etc. Focal length would complement the lenses I already have. But I'm also considering upgrading the wide-mid kit lens I have, to gain a faster speed across the spectrum. The kit lens only gives me 3.5-5.6 now, but has IS. Maybe a Tramron 17-50 2.8 or something similar. The assumption being that 17mm is wide enough. My dilemma is I don't know which way to go. Do I fill the gap in my focal length or do I opt for a faster lens in a range I already have? Is the kit lens holding me back enough that I should upgrade that at the expense of having the wider lens? Is the ultra wide range really that useful when I'm already getting down to 17mm? Got a little long there, sorry. Thanks for any advice you can offer.