Tamron lens

I was wondering if anyone could give me an opinion on the Tamron 24-135/3.5-5.6 lens. I recently purchased a 10D and needs some lenses, however I am on a budget and cannot afford any of the L lenses. The women at our local photo store showed me this lens and said she uses it herself and loves it. I also noticed that sigma has a 24-135 2.8-4.5 Aspherical IF. Has anyone used this one? I still have a lot to learn so most of my work is very general. I would like to do some landscape work as well as portraits so this focal range should meet my needs for now. Any input would be appreciated.
Dana

Here is a good start. http://www.photozone.d​e/2Equipment/easytxt.h​tm
I have the Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 and love it.

TC

I can't give you any info on that specific lens. I do have the 70-300 Tamron f/4-5.6, and have been very pleased with it. Keep in mind however, that I am not a professional and this is strictly a hobby for me. If you would like to see some samples from this lens, I recently posted a few on the share photos board:

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=23365
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=23383
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=23345

These were all taken with the same lens.

Sigma makes some good glass. I use a couple of their lenses.

One thing to be aware of, though. On the 10D, you really aren't going to have any wide-angle capability with this lens. The 24mm end will give you wide-angle on 35mm format, but not on a 10D digital sensor. It will actually function as a 38.4-216, which is really almost normal to telephoto. For landscape photography, you are probably going to want some wide-angle capability. To truly get wide-angle out of a 10D, you are going to need something more along the lines of a 17-40 or 15-35 or something like that.

For about $50 more you might want to look at the Canon 28-135, it is an older design but does have image stabilization.

The 28-135 3.5-5.6 IS is a well-liked lens. It scores well at photodo.com and is known to be very sharp - though not quite as sharp as "L" glass. And Image stabilization, particularly with the 1.6 "multiplier" makes it even better. It would be a good companion to the 17-40 lens.

Also, consider the 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 USM lens which is also pretty sharp and sells for only around $225 US. Just watch out for the other 28-105 f/4.5-5.6 "kit" lens which is optically not as good. If I didn't have the 28-105 lens already, I'd get the 28-135 IS.

Thanks for everyone's suggestions. I didn't even know about canon's 28-135 IS. I think that is the one I'm going with. I did knew I wouldn't get much of a wide angle out of this lens, but this lens will serve me until I can come up with more cash. I've considered playing the lottery more often ever since I discovered this hobby. I'm still trying to justify spending the $1500 for the 10D to my husband. That's a lost cause.
Dana