I used that lens on a 400D body. that lens is designed for full frame or film cameras in special... the build quality is ok; the image stabilizer works great; non blurred pics at 1/25-1/30 sec. if you have a steady hand.
The image quality is beyond kit lens but you will not get spectacular sharp images ( like 50 mm f/1.4 ,17-55mm f/2.8 or L range).
Is not a wide lens 28*1.6 = 44.8 mm on a crop sensor camera (like XTi). This can be a problem (and will be) when you shooting indoor or landscapes.
For 50 more $ i recommend 17-85 IS (same image quality but much wider). Consider even 17-40 mm f/4 L ( incredible sharp lens for the money ).
100mm f/2.8 USM, Quad core Workstation PC with 8Gb of RAM and Nvidia ...
Quoted Message: Lostarts, is that 24-70 an L series? If it is allowed, would you be able to post a link where I might check it out.Not sure an L is in the budget but I`d like to read up on that one.Nicku, I have the 17-40 L (won it as a prize!) and love it. I`m looking for something to close the gap between that and a sigma 70-300 (which I hope to replace with a Canon one of these days.Thanatonautii, Thank you for the input! I appreciate the help.Karen
Yes, the 24-70mm f/2.8 is an L lens, and far, far better than the 28-135mm you were thinking of.
However, since you already have a 17-40 f/4L I don't really see why you would need another lens with a wider angle. The 30mm gap from 40-70mm can be filled by taking a couple few steps forward!
I would suggest instead to replace your Sigma with a Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L or similar. Maybe even the 70-200mm f/4 L which is slower but a little sharper (or maybe it isn't sharper at f/4, I think the f/2.8 simply doesn't do as well wide open). I would buy the f/2.8 myself, but if your budget is tight the f/4 may be an option. It would be the same speed as your wide angle. ;)
I used to have the 28-135 on a eos 10. The lens is good for the price I think. The stabilizer is not quite smooth though but one will get decent sharp images - far more better (overall) than 18-55 or the regular kit lenses.
I wouldn't recommend the Canon 17-85, as I know at least 3 people having it and went to the service several times with them.
If you plan to buy a L instead, one of those recommended earlier, you should take into consideration the purpose you're buying them for - don't go for 70-200 f2.8 if you plan to use it as a walk or travel-around lens. The 24-70 L weights "2.1 lb (950 g)" while the Rebel xti you have weights "Body (inc battery): 556 g (1.2 lb)".
I would recommend you to buy fix lenses instead: they are fast, small and accurate, sharp, colored, etc. But you can't zoom them :) you need to know how to shoot with each lens. :)
I think, from what I've heard here and a couple other places, that I will stick with what I have now as far as zoom lens, until I can replace that sigma with a Canon. (providing that sigma holds out and doesn't stop working on me like the shorter sigma zoom I had did) And I was thinking that I really like my little 50mm and would like to try another prime or two. Maybe they will make me think a little more because I'll have to move around instead of just zooming.
So... any suggestions on a good prime lens or two to add to what I have? (17-40mm, 50mm, 70-300mm) and has anyone had good luck with any 3rd party lenses on their Canon?