"L"-level replacement for Canon 28-135 IS lens?

[photobug]

I've been shooting 90% of my photos (on a 20D) with a Canon EF 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS lens. I also have a Sigma 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 EX OS APO lens. I've been pretty pleased with the image quality from the Sigma (at least one review described it as being near Canon "L"-quality). It may be my imagination, but I do seem to get sharper images with a bit better contrast out of the Sigma (but I really should do a direct A-B comparison in their overlapping range, shot on a tripod, instead of relying on my "impression").

At some point I'd like to upgrade to better glass for my main lens. The 28-135 zoom range is pretty useful -- I wouldn't mind a little more range on either end (esp on the wide one), but that's not a deal-breaker. Canon 20-150mm f/2.8-3.5 IS "L" lens, anyone?!:wink. ...But unfortunately, Canon doesn't offer any "L" glass in anything near this range ... well, except for the $2500 28-300 IS "L" lens, which is expen$ive and pretty heavy for a carry-around lens (I may be forced to eventually consider it, anyway). Maybe I'll get lucky and Canon will anounce new "L" glass like the fantasy 20-150 lens I mentioned? I'd really like to retain the IS feature. A maximum aperture faster than f/3.5 would be nice, but again that's not a deal-breaker.

So here are my questions:



What lens would anyone suggest as an upgrade/replacement for a 28-135 IS?


And has anyone had direct experience in "upgrading" from a 28-135 IS? What lens(es) did you get, and how noticeable was the difference?
thanks for any suggestions / comments / discussion!
= Dave

[Khaos]

I sold mine because it wasn't fast enough for me. Outside it was fine, but in low light I was not pleased. Initially I went with a Tamron 28-75 2.8. It's an excellent lens for the price, and I already had the 70-200 2.8 IS to go with it.

Then prime fever hit me.:D I sold the Tamron and got the 35 L, 50 1.4, and the 85 1.8. These fast primes gave me everything I wanted. Sure a zoom is more convenient, but why buy a dslr if you don't use primes? I'l never give up my 70-200, I love it, but I'd rather have primes for everything else. Unfortunatley on the wide angle end, Canon is severlely lacking in really sharp primes.

So any way. My suggestion is to go prime. If no, then try the Tamron 28-75.

[sberley]

I'm also considering upgrading from the 28-135 IS for my 20D. I'm thinking/drooling about the Canon 24-70/2.8 L. Did you compare the Tamron to the Canon, or the Tokina for that matter?

Thanks,

Steve

[pathfinder]

I'm also considering upgrading from the 28-135 IS for my 20D. I'm thinking/drooling about the Canon 24-70/2.8 L. Did you compare the Tamron to the Canon, or the Tokina for that matter?

Thanks,

Steve

I use my Canon 24-70f2.8 L on my 1DsMkll - it suits it well - size and weight - and very sharp. But it is really big and heavy -

I have kept my Tamron 28-75 f2.8 Di for use on my 20D as my main walk-around lens. It is smaller and lighter than the Canon by quite a bit and very sharp. It seems to have a little more flair than the L glass, but it is almost 1/4 the price. I used it in Ohio while travelling on my motorbike. I do not feel that it is a second place choice to my Canon lens. I prefer less weight if I am going to carry it on my shoulder all day long. 20D+TamronDi works very nice for that. In a studio I will chose the bigger, heavier more expensive camera.:dunno

Here are a couple shots captured with a Tamron 28-75 f2.8 Di that is now over four years old and has over 15,000 miles in a tank bag on a twin cylinder motorcycle. That is a pretty good demonstration of duralbility for the 20D and the Tamron lens.

http://pathfinder.smugmug.com/photos/29589061-L.jpg

http://pathfinder.smugmug.com/photos/29612968-L.jpg

[pathfinder]

Would a Canon 17-85 IS EF-S be an alternative? A little wider than the 28-135. We really do need a GOOD 20-150mm zoom don't we? Ah well, we can dream!

[photobug]

Thanks to everyone for your comments!

Other than having 1/2 the zoom range of my 28-135, the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 sounds tempting. I ran across some reviews of it on Amazon (at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0000A1G05) and every one of them is positively "glowing".

Re using prime lenses -- great in theory, but lousy in practice for me. If I was doing studio work, sure thing. But I shoot a lot of shots of children and sports, where I cannot maintain anywhere near a constant distance from my subject(s). And even when I can be at a constant distance, I many need to frame larger or smaller subjects, requiring different focal lengths even at the same distance.

By all means, keep those comments / suggestions coming! I'm finding this discussion very helpful.

= Dave (photobug)