For:

It gets fantastic reviews, supposedly as sharp as much more expensive glass.

It's cheap. I could get it for $120-130.

Against:

It covers basically the same range as my 18-55mm kit lens (the kit lens is poorer quality).

I could put that money towards a tele lens. I rarely need big tele range, but might find the opportunity to use it if I had it.<ul><li><a href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=98&amp;sort=7&amp;cat=37&amp;page=1">http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=98&amp;sort=7&amp;cat=37&amp;page=1</a</li></ul>

paying L money.

In fact Chup, I got in on the Dell deal last week. Picked up a 10-22 for $615 with shipping and tax. I can't use it, so I bought it with the intention of selling it on eBay. If you want it and you cover shipping out to you, it's yours for what I paid. You seem to enjoy landscape work. I really think your money would be better spent on this lens rather than the 24-70.

but for the sort of stuff I'm doing now (I'm now in Chicago, so it will be mostly cityscapes for the time being) I need a bit more range on my walkaround lens. 615 is out of my price range by 3x, too. Thanks anyhow, though.

and I can't justify paying the same for a Sigma lens and Canon lens if the Canon takes worse pictures.

quality and a great price, under $250. Light weight, fast zoom and USM. The lens is plastic, but on the XT that shouldn't matter. Make sure you get the Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM. Check out some nice pics on <a href="http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/ef_28105_35ii">PBase</a>.