If you have the 17-55 you really don't need this one....

I bought this lens because I wanted slightly more high end zoom than what is offered on the 17-55 USM EF/S that came with my Rebel. Most film shooters use a 50mm lens for their all around near object lens but sometimes this is too much magnification for nearby subjects if you have that on a digital body (making that 50 more like an 85mm). There's nothing wrong with this lens but for my karate subjects when they can be as close as ten feet, my 17-55 lens is a much better choice because of the extra magnification on the Digital Rebel.

What's the focal length really?
On a regular 35mm canon EF mount film body this lens is as stated 28-90mm, however, if you put this on the digital rebel or the 10D/20D (not sure about the Mark I/II but who can afford that beast) the digital sensor is smaller than a 35mm frame and the magnification goes up by a factor of 1.6 making it a 44.8mm-144mm lens equivalent. This lens is good for near subjects, such as shooting a birthday party or maybe even a wedding, anything where you aren't too far away (more than 50 feet) from your subject. I use mine to shoot karate demos from the floor (since I'm a student they let me run around while the action is going on) with flash.

Compliments:
The lens is small and light and uses a USM motor, however it does not appear to have the superior USM motor that allows for full time manual focusing. Like all Canon AF lens there is a AF/MF switch on the barrel of the lens.

Complaints:
My only complaints about these consumer canon lenses are that the build quality seems a little bit chintzy, they're slow at f4 minimum aperature and they come with nothing but plastic caps for both ends of the lens. When I bought lenses twenty years ago for my Pentax film bodies they were all made of metal and you usually at least got a basic case for it--not today. The price of lenses, although they're higher than 20 years ago, seem to be about the same versus the average income, i.e. a $200.00 lens sounded very high to me 20 years ago but a comparable lens is now $400.00 so it's really not any higher if you take into account that salaries should be that much higher. When compared to my 18-55 kit lens that does have a ring USM motor in it, this lens just plain focuses slowly, it doesn't "hunt" annoyingly like some autofocus lense can/do but it is noticeably slower to focus than the 18-55 kit lens.

Canon glass vs. Tokina/Sigma/Tamron/etc:
Canon makes two types of lenses, consumer and L-Series pro. While I'd love some L Glass they're just way out of my range unless I can luck out and find some used. Canon has adamantly refused to license their lens communication protocals to any third party lens manufacturer. All third party lenses have been reverse-engineered to work with Canon EF mount bodies. What this means is that any third party lens you buy may be a crapshoot on future Canon bodies (ie. while your sigma lens works now, Canon could release a firmware update or a new body with slightly different protocols so your lens no longer works--lenses can be "rechipped" but only a limited number of times supposedly). Canon also supposedly has an annoying habit of what appears be purposeful sabotage of their new product releases so they won't work with 3rd party battery packs or lenses that may already be in existance.

To Close:
This is not a bad lens for the price. It's plenty sharp, colors are well saturated and the zoom range is very useable but it's a bit on the slow side focusing for fast action. I've only shot with it a little bit but it had no problems focusing and everything so far looks sharp and clear. The 17-55 is really better for the wider angle low end at least on the digital models. You really don't need both if you got the 17-55 with the camera, spend your money on a higher range zoom or get a big prime.