lenses

[didger]

[font color=\'#000000\']

I know i can't go wrong with the canon

It's been a while since I did my exhaustive research and test grid shooting on wide angle and ultrawide angle lenses.  As a result of this research I decided to go for nothing but Zeiss distagon prime wide lenses for my 1ds.  I don't know about this particular 28-75, but I do know that you can indeed go quite seriously wrong with some Canon wide angle lenses (including L), especially zooms, unless you like weak corners and edge CA and exhorbitant prices.  For small sensor cameras (like your 20D) you won't experience these weaknesses so much, but this same forgiveness will also apply to Tamron, Sigma, Tokina, etc.  You can very likely get a lens for a fraction of the price of the Canon that will give you equally good results.  The general consensus from a number of reviews and carefully done tests has been that the Tamron 20-40mm lens is as good as any $1500+ Nikon ultrawide zoom and substantially better than any Canon offering.  I have this lens and did my own testing and was favorably impressed, but not compared to Zeiss primes, so now my brother is very happily using the Tamron 20-40 with his 10D.  Don't jump too quickly and don't get sucked into Canon brand name worship.  That great reputation is largely well deserved, but definitely NOT in the case of wide angle lenses up to 28mm.[/font]

[Leigh]

DELETE

[wjy]

[font color=\'#000000\']I have a canon 20d now.  I was going to purchase a new midrange lens.  I was looking at ( and not loving the price) the canon 24-70 f2.8L.  Then I saw on a lense test page that the tamron f2.8 di 28-75 got rated "very good" just below the canon.  Does anyone know about this lens?  It is a third of the price.  Also I see that the tokina 28-80 f2.8 pro does pretty well also.  Any info would be great, I know i can't go wrong with the canon but it is a big purchase.[/font]

[Leigh]

When you say "midrange" lens, I assume you're aware that 28mm, with a 1.6 sensor is no longer wide angle, but closer to a "normal" lens on a 35mm film, or FF sensor.

  The Canon 17-85 S IS would give greater range, and paired with a 70-300 would make a nice two lens system.  ( I like to travel light, and am thinking of shelving my 100-400 L IS, for a 70-300 DO.

  The Sigma 18-125 seems to be well received, albeit a bit sluggish.

   I've always had great results with Tamron lenses, and wouldn't hesitate to buy any of their DI lenses.

Leigh

[didger]

am thinking of shelving my 100-400 L IS, for a 70-300 DO.

You might want to check the thread about this lens in the lenses etc. part of the forum.  You might get sharper results for not much more weight or money with a 70-200 and a 1.4x II extender.

As for Tamron, they do make some really sharp lenses, but also some real dogs.  A bit of research first is a good idea.  My only negative experience with Tamron zooms has been poor build.  With the kind of hard use my lenses get Tamron zooms get wiggly and shaky fairly soon and I have one that totally quit working (diaphragm stuck) after very little use.  Due to image quality and ruggedness considerations I now use nothing be the best quality primes (Zeiss and Canon).  I wish there were a way of traveling light and having really robust lenses of the best possible quality, but....