That Tamron lens was probably meant for a 35mm SLR, or a "full-frame" DSLR like the EOS 5D..

On those cameras, 28mm would be reasonably wide. On yours (which has a 1.6x crop factor), it provides a field of view that is only slightly wider than "normal"..

I don't know how "wide" you want to go, but there are various lenses starting at 17mm or 18mm that would cover a general-purpose range, and be in (or close to) your stated budget. E.g., the Canon 17-85mm IS lens (slow lens, but has IS that is handy for the long end), or the Tamron 17-50mm constant f/2.8 lens...

Thanks. That sounds right. I bought the lens for a 35mm Elan 7e. I didn't realize it didn't convert to the dslr as well as I thought it would but dslr never crossed my mind at the time. It doesn't seem to perform as well on the 30d in terms of image quality either. Is this usually the case with "multi-media functional" lenses?..

I'm not sure what "multi-media functional" means with regards to a SLR lens. But the larger the zoom ratio, the more likely the lens is to have optical compromises. Older zooms supposedly did not have all of the advances applied to current ones..

The ease of examining a digital photo at pixel level may encourage more scrutiny of the flaws of the lens that took it. It could be that the lens had image quality flaws in the film days, but that you weren't examining highly-magnified pictures..

Another factor to consider: Somewhere I read that film isn't real picky about the angle at which light comes in. Digital sensors are. So a lens that had good image quality on a 35mm SLR, but that brought in light at an angle, might have reduced image quality on a DSLR...

Another factor to consider: Somewhere I read that film isn't realpicky about the angle at which light comes in. Digital sensors are.So a lens that had good image quality on a 35mm SLR, but that broughtin light at an angle, might have reduced image quality on a DSLR..

I've heard this too. I'm not sure about the physics behind it but in general it is often advised that relatively cheap zooms from film days will not perform well on DSLRs..

You have several options..

1. The cheapest option is probably the Canon 'kit lens' 18-55 f/3.5 - f/5.6 (the newer one, with image stabilisation - not the older one, which is optically much worse).

2. Third-party offerings like the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (the constant f/2.8 is a big advantage), the more-or-less equivalent Sigma 18-50 f/2.8, or the SIgma 17-70 f/2.8-f/4.5. All of these have had a lot of support from pleased users on these forums..

3. If you want an all-in-one lens (which you might, given your choice of a 28-200 for your film camera) the best of the current crop seems to be the Tamron 18-250 f/3.5 - f/6.3. A bit slow at the long end, but your camera has good performance at high ISO settings, so you might like the convenience of such a lens..

Whichever one you get, you want 17 or 18 mm at the short end which is approximately equivalent in terms of field-of-view to about 28mm (standard wide angle) on a 35mm film camera..

Best wishesMike..

For about a hundred dollars more than your stated budget, you can get L glassthe 17-40mm f/4L. I highly recommend it. Most of the photos on my photo site (below) were taken with this lens..

Jerryhttp://jchoate.zenfolio.com/..

Thanks Jerry and others! The EF 17-40mm f/4L is a little pricey but I'm very glad you mentioned it. I am willing to hold out a little longer to invest in glass like that and most likely will. I didn't realize there was an L series lens of what I was looking for not too far from my price range. I really appreciate all the recommendations especially the Sigma 17-70mm. Thanks again for all the help.-mike..