I've got myself a couple of new toys: I've started playing with facebook, and I got myself a Canon EF-S 10-22mm lens, which in 35mm equivalent is 16-35mm.
I'm impressed with facebook. There's of course the social aspect of facebook that's been beaten to death. The site however is well put together, especially the manner in which applications work within the relatively clean UI. (There's a lot in the UI, but that's OK.)
As for my non-virtual toy... I spent a lot of time agonizing over which lens to get: Sigma 12-24mm, Tamron 11-18mm, or the Canon. With a Canon 30D, given the small sensor size, getting a wide angle is difficult. I wanted to get down to about 2omm, but regular lenses don't cut it. And I didn't want a lens that's specifically designed for the small sensor size, since that would make graduating to a full frame camera difficult. (Not that there's any reason to believe that's going to happen any time soon, but just in case...) The Sigma fits a full frame camera, but the chromatic aberration seems quite bad. Plus I've heard Sigma has a real problem with sample variance. The Tamron was quite nice, but the feel of the lens was clunky compared to the cannon. The cannon was smoother and faster, both mechanically and optically. It was also more expensive.
I got the lens on Saturday. We went to Mission Peak that day, and took a few photographs. I'm in the process of sorting through them, and I'll eventually put them on my gallery on Picasaweb. The short of it is that the lens is great, but the photographer isn't. I have a lot to learn if I'm going to use this lens well. I think I got a couple of decent shots out of it.