Tips for New Canon Zoom Lens?

I have a crappy 28-90II USM lens that came with my elan 7...I am looking in to getting a different one. I cannot afford the L 24-70 zoom from Canon...any suggestions on something similar but better in either Canon or Sigma?
Thanks.......

What's your budget?

$500 - Tokina 28-80 AT-X f/2.8
$400 - Canon 28-135mm IS
$300 - Canon 24-85mm but it's not much of a step up.

Those are the ones that are similar. But what's your budget and what do you want to shoot?

I suppose $500 would be my max....the Canon 28-105...Canon 28-135 and Sigma 28-70 2.8 have been the ones that I have been looking at. I don't know if I should stick with Canon or not....have heard that the 28-135 maybe isn't that sharp. I haven't looked into any other brands yet...

I have the 28-135 IS USM, it's a very nice lens - the IS (Image Stabilizer) is very useful and many people regard this one as Canon's best consumer-grade zoom lens.

I'd opt for theTokina 28-80 over the Sigma 28-70 - Sigma has a habit of making lenses that aren't compatible with future Canon cameras. It will work now, but it may not work with the next camera you get. The Tokina AT-X series are supposed to be very fine lenses.

I've also heard that the Canon 28-135 isn't that sharp - I think you're paying a bit for the longer telephoto and the IS rather than better glass. It's a very good lens and a good bargain, but if you don't need the reach and/or the IS then it's not such a bargain.

Have you considered primes?

Getting a quality 35mm,50mm or 85mm will not only be cheaper, the image quality is greater than consumer lenses. It will also help with composition and give you a very fast lens.

You could get the 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 MKII or MKI used, which is pretty good at f/5.6+ and a good 50mm f/1.8 prime lens, which would put you at around 250-300 bucks.

-hza

I know the question is about zoom, but I totally agree with Haifidelity about primes. $500-600 is enough to buy 2-3 fast, sharp prime lenses. I have 50mm f/1.8 ($70) and 135mm f/2.8 ($270) and quite happy with my choice. Actually, you should buy 50mm 1.8 no matter what it's just too good and too cheap to be ignored.

I upgrade to the F/1.4 USM version and was going to sell my f/1.8 MKI--but decided to keep it since it was still a great performer!

-hza

I echo the prime recommendation. If budget is an issue, get the 28-135 IS and fill in with primes to get the low light capability. I will be testing my 100 f2 tonight for the first time. If it is too long, I'll drop back to the 85 f1.8. Even an L zoom won't give you that speed, and the primes may be sharper at 2.8 than the 24-70 L.

How about Tamron 28-75? This is what I'm getting, since I cannot justify paying a load of cash for Canon 24-70, regardless of how good it definetely is. 8)

Someone mentioned Tokina... yes this would be my second choice, the thing is, it is built better, but Tamron delivers better photos, as far as I know.

yeah, actually most of my lens are primes...and I agree that they are better...just wanted to upgrade to a better zoom...because their are still times that it comes in handy when you don't have time to keep changing your lens. Thanks for the info....

I second this one, I just bought this lens and so far it's very good - pretty sharp at f/4 and up and very usable at f/2.8. The AF is fast (not quite fast as the Canon USM, but still fast) and relatively quiet (you know it's not USM though).
Here are few samples, all taken with this lens - http://www.pbase.com/o​legis/bneibrak .

It may not be the sharpest lens ever, but for its price ($320 at B&H) - it's one of the best bargains. Maybe one day I'll get rich and buy the 24-70 f/2.8L, but untill then I'm pretty satisfied with the Tamron.