decent under 70mm lens for rebel xt?

somehow canon botched fixing my 28-135 IS lens ( now unusably soft) so i traded it in towards a 70-200 f4 but now only have the kit lens for under 70mm( and a 50mm f1.8)..i saw a tamron 28-75 f2.8 and a tokina 28-70 f2.8 for about what i want to spend. i want to get a ultra wide angle soon so the 28 would probably be ok but i am wondering, other than aperture, are either of these enough "better" than the kit lens to warrant getting them to replace that? or any suggestions? if i get something now it has to be on the cheap end since my budget is going to the 70-200 and a flash so this will be squeaked out of the grocery money ;D : or it these are not usable I can wait for a while till i can get something better. i really don't want to buy lenses that are "ok cause it's cheap" anymore but if either of these are good not just cause they are cheap i'd consider them
thanks for the input

 

I'll vouch for the Tamron 28-75. I was considering getting a used Canon 24-70 F2.8L, but I decided to go with a new Tamron for a lot less.
I got mine after I had acquired a 70-200f4L. Having gotten a very high quality medium telephoto I found that I hated to go back to the kit lens because it just didn't compare. This was when I was at Disney World, I found myself trying to walk around the Magic Kingdom with the 70-200 mounted, and that of course didn't work out too well.
I'm a pixel peeper, I tested mine to see how soft it was when wide open (compared to the kit lens, famous for needing to be stopped down to about F8 for good sharpness). Mine is slightly soft wide open, but it doesn't have to be closed down much to get up to peak sharpness. My testing methods are crude and may be inaccurate, but that seems to be about the same performance as my 70-200 (which I'm thinking may be slightly soft, others claim it should be tack sharp wide open). It's still perfectly usable at 2.8.
I will say that I've noticed that my copy has a definite flare or internal reflection problem.. I'm not certain of the term, but a very bright light like a firework or illuminated sign at night can make sort of blurry mirror image on the opposite side of the frame. Not good, but.. it really does take a strong light in an otherwise dark scene, it hasn't shown up often.

I'll also mention that I've seen a lot of reports of bad copies of this lens. People sometimes report that their copy doesn't focus properly, or is too soft.. of course you can never be sure if you can rely on the reports people are posting, sometimes they report really weird stuff.. like a lens that is randomly soft in part of a scene, as if it defocuses unpredictably, sounds more to me like motion blur or something.. but it sure sounds like Tamron has some quality control issues. As such I bought mine from a local store that I knew I could return it to if I wasn't happy with it.
But I'm quite happy with it. It can't compare to the 70-200 for luxurious feel, it feels a bit cheap.. but it IS cheap, I really can't complain about that. The image quality is very good though.
Just be aware of the limits of a 28mm wide end. A lot of people feel that's limiting. I don't, normally, because I just don't shoot ultra wide very often. The only time it's been an issue for me was when shooting fireworks at the Magic Kingdom. But that's me, I REALLY don't shoot wide very often. I spend a lot of time zoomed all the way to 75, sometimes I use it instead of the 70-200 because of the drastically shorter minimum focusing distance.

However, there is a wider Tamron 2.8. They make a 17-50. But it's in their DI-II line, which means it's only for 1.6 FF cameras. So even though it's not EF-S, you couldn't use it on a full frame camera. I have no experience with it and can't comment on the quality, I think it came out after I got my 28-75.

 

it was probably an old review and i didn't know it. although i think i did see one on ebay..i would like to stay around $400 or less although if i knew of a great one i might just wait till i could get it.

anyone know what angle would be considered an actual fisheye on a rebel xt? ( 1.6 crop)

i was wondering if i should just get the ultra wide then maybe get a prime for midway between ( like 30ish area) if i think i need it. right now i would say mostly i shoot at 50 or above but i like the look or the ultra wides so think i would use that but don't know how much i really need a 28-70 for...i really like using my 50 and 100 prime but am trying to think of practicality as well... of course this could all change any time as soon as i see some body's work and think "wow , i should try that".

 

Ive got the Tamron 28-75 and I'm somewhat underwhelmed by it. The photos are generally focused, and it's a decent low-light performer, but I find it just lacks the "oompf" I want from an every day lens. When I compare the detail captured in the shots from my 70-200 f/4 L series lens to the Tamron, the difference is remarkable. I try not to be a "gear snob", but there really is a difference in quality between the L series and everything else, as far as I can tell. There is plenty of detailed reviews on the lens at the dpreview forums, and I think most people generally prefer their experiences with the Sigma equivalent if price is a concern.

Personally, I'm thinking about putting the tax refund towards a Canon 17-40mm L lens. I wish it was a f/2.8 rather than an f/4, but I just can't justify laying out an extra $700 for a single f-stop. As I'm still using the Rebel XT body, though, I want to make sure it's going to give me satisfactory wide angle performance. At some point in the next few years I'll probably bite the bullet and upgrade to a full frame body, so I'm kind of at the stage where I want to make sure I'm investing in quality lenses that will work on either mount.

 

that's exactly where i am at as well..since i've only had my rebel xt for under a yr ( my first digital after using slr) i can't really "justify" an upgraded body-yet- so i figure if i can get some decent lenses before hand i'll be ahead of the game

 

17-55 f/2.8 IS. Even if one day I'll go 100% full-frame, I'll hang on to one crop-sensor body so I can keep using that drool inducing lens.

 

kelly, that's over $1k... & given my past experience of going from $200=" ok price">$400="ok price">$600="ok price" in 8 months time , i'd say it'll take me at least another month or two till i think "$1000+?.....that's a pretty good price for a lens" ;D ;D ;D

 

I usually don't give any recommendation outside the specs (such as weight, price, zoom range, etc), but this lens is so havenly it's worth its weight in gold. One thing for sure though, don't even bother trying this lens if you don't have the budget to purchase it. So far I've "sold" more than a dozen of these lens just by encouraging my friend's clients to try it for a shot or two Yeah, I'm evil.


Now... where's my comission, Canon? ;D

 

I've all but given up the pipe dream of finding a lens that makes me happy for under $650. I picked up a Tamron 28-75 for about $370 last year hoping to save some coin, and I'm already getting ready to ebay it after using it about 10 times. When I compare those shots to what I get with my 70-200 f/4 L it just isn't even close. Then again, I still use my 50mm f/1.8 that cost $65 all the time, so maybe I don't know what the heck I'm talking about, other than those L series lenses may actually be worth the coin (and for purposes of this thread, I'm treating the 18-55 IS as an L series, since it uses L glass).

I hate spending money, but at the end of the day, I've never sat around and said "I wish I had gone with a lower quality <whatever>." Whether it's wine, gadgets, or vacations, I'd always rather go large or stay home.