As much as I would like to get a full line up of L lenses (and a new body) my budget is quite dismal.

What lenses can I get that are cheaper than L's but offer similar levels of performance/durability?

Going to have to give up one of those, I think.

Performance and pricewise the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 is a wonderful lens. Easy to break, tho.

My experience is the 50mm f1.4, and the 100mm f2.8 Macro. Great value for the money. Don't overlook the 70~200 f4L which is now selling new for around $550. Used, I'm sure, much less. BTW, I have been very happy buying used lenses from reputable dealers. Not a lot that can go wrong with lenses, as opposed to mechanical/electronic hybrids which our DSLRs are.
Good luck
Dave in NJ

Yeah i've been considering 2nd hand, but that probably means waiting till i'm next in the uk as south africa is not a cheap 2nd hand market. I think i would go for the 70-200 f2.8 if I did end up getting any so that i can use a TC.

primes seem to be a good way to go. I've currently just got the 50mm f1.8.

ANyone have experience with the canon 20mm f2.8?

Both the 100mm and 50mm macros are excellent (and the 50 is very cheap used). If budget is limited, many of the cheaper primes still offer pretty viable performance and if you are happy to buy used there are some real bargains around. As already stated the 70~200/4 is a cracking lens.

Avoid the 20/2.8 which I've found to have soft corners personally, and it does have a reputation.....

I agree on the macros, they're both very sharp, but the 50 can be a bit hit & miss IMO focusing in lower light..

85 1.8 is a fave of mine.

Seconded...a fine lens!

So far between this forum and another i've been recommended:

EF 100 f/2.8 Macro
85mm f/1.8 is L
Tamron 17-50 f/2.8
Sigma 70-200 f/2.8
Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8
70-200 f4L

Ok, quick question, i've found a reasonably cheap EF28mm F1.8, anyone have anything to say about this. I find myself working in low light quite often so another fast lense would be well used.

The Tamron 17-35 Di lens, has proved an excellent performer for me.

Another vote for 50 mm 1.4. They say that the 1.8 is good also, though I haven't used that one.

Dave

I shot with a friend's 28 1.8 the other day. Very nice lens, very sharp and not too big on the camera. I would love one myself.

Glad you said that cos i found and bought one on ebay yesterday. Was the cheapest i've seen one for a while, some guy was cutting down his kit as it was too heavy or something.

Unfortunately i'm in SA so i have to wait for my uncle to get it, post it to a friend who is coming to SA in may and then probably wait a bit more till I can see them and get it.

Here is another crazy idea to get greater image quality, if you can live with the down sides. Use MF lenses and adapters. I have a few L lenses, have had L zooms like the f/4 17-40mm and 70-200mm versions. I have gone to L primes like the 35L and consider getting a 135L, mostly for the indoor basketball I do. Last season I used the 35L and an 85/1.8 with good success on my 5d. But most of what I do is travel, scenic stuff and have decided to go with MF primes. Why? Cause they are light, sharp and this stuff doesn't move. I can take the time to focus manually, heck even use a tripod mostly. I won't get into a discussion of what type but suffice it to say, these lenses can be relatively cheap also, and there are adapters for almost anything short of M Leica lenses. I have used my old MF Nikkors and other old primes without much issue. IN general, most of what folk have said above is true, lenses like 28mm, 50/1.8 or 2.5, 85mm primes are excellent and very sharp and give up little to L glass. They certainly can match or excede some of the L zooms in many factors. The only difference between these and the expensive L glass, besides the cost and weight, is corner sharpness, CA, and even here they in some cases can be better[heresy] then the L glass, in others not so much, but one thing for sure, I am leaving my heavy zooms home on next trip.

Thirded - fantastic lens.