Canon 28-300 f3.5-5.6L is

Messages
14,341
Name
Nightmare
Edit My Images
No
#2
It's an all-in-one slow aperature lens, likely intended for photojournalists in harsh and fast action, but reasonably bright conditions. Syria conflict comes to mind.

If you can afford the second or two to change and are not choking in dust or smoke even a 24-105/4 mk1 + 70-300mm L / or 70-200 /4 would give you much better quality in only two pieces and probably for less. Obviously 24-70/2.8 + 70-200/2.8 is a more capable combo.
 
OP
OP
steunited

steunited

No 1 Doctor Who Fan
Messages
801
Edit My Images
Yes
#3
It's an all-in-one slow aperature lens, likely intended for photojournalists in harsh and fast action, but reasonably bright conditions. Syria conflict comes to mind.

If you can afford the second or two to change and are not choking in dust or smoke even a 24-105/4 mk1 + 70-300mm L / or 70-200 /4 would give you much better quality in only two pieces and probably for less. Obviously 24-70/2.8 + 70-200/2.8 is a more capable combo.
Thanks I have 24-105 and 70-200 2.8 which I have no intention of getting rid of anytime soon but was just curious if it would also be worth trying to get a second hand one of these for days out when you can't be bothered to take more than one lens.
It must be a decent lens as it costs enough brand new
 

Canon Bob

Loves the Enemy
Messages
10,408
Name
Bob
Edit My Images
Yes
#4
Thanks I have 24-105 and 70-200 2.8 which I have no intention of getting rid of anytime soon .......
At 200-300mm you'll have a new possibilities but shots at 28-200mm will likely be inferior to those taken with your existing lenses.

It must be a decent lens as it costs enough brand new
Conversely, the 135/2 and 400/5.6 must be mediocre as they're inexpensive? The lens costs a pretty packet because it's challenging to cover such a broad range and 10x zooms are rare beasts on SLR's. The second factor that affects the list price is the intended market....it's a newsroom/paparazzi lens and not heavily priced for a flexible tool that the owners can depreciate in their tax affairs.

If you want 'spur of the moment' shots of anything and everything then it's hard to beat but don't expect it to hold up against your other options.
 
Messages
14,341
Name
Nightmare
Edit My Images
No
#5
The lens costs a pretty packet because it's challenging to cover such a broad range and 10x zooms are rare beasts on SLR's. The second factor that affects the list price is the intended market....it's a newsroom/paparazzi lens and not heavily priced for a flexible tool that the owners can depreciate in their tax affairs.

If you want 'spur of the moment' shots of anything and everything then it's hard to beat but don't expect it to hold up against your other options.
It is certainly not an impossible lens to make better but would costs a fortune. You only need to look at Hollywood level cine super zooms, and Canon make some too. You will probably get this in T2.8 version, a lot sharper too just might need a new mortgage and a Hilux truck.
 

Canon Bob

Loves the Enemy
Messages
10,408
Name
Bob
Edit My Images
Yes
#6
It is certainly not an impossible lens to make better but would costs a fortune. You only need to look at Hollywood level cine super zooms, and Canon make some too. You will probably get this in T2.8 version, a lot sharper too just might need a new mortgage and a Hilux truck.
That's very true but, as you say, the cost is phenominal even before you consider that they're resolving for 8-10Mp sensors and not the 30-50+MP that DSLR's have attained.

I had the earlier incarnation of this lens, the 35-350L. A solid beast that gave 'adequate' results on a 5D or 20D but it was never as good as the lens that I'd left at home.
 
Messages
226
Name
John
Edit My Images
No
#7
I have the Nikon 28-300mm which is a much cheaper lens but it's been my favourite lens on the D700/D750 as it really freed up the camera for me. In practice I didn't take it out and about with a range of lenses as it was too bulky for me when I was carrying it for hours at a time so I'd take a smaller format camera instead before I had the 28-300mm. Once I bought it though I could take the bigger camera and while the lens isn't as good as others, it's still decent and I benefited from the larger sensor and superb AF system. When I need the best IQ or maximum low light I use the other lenses but most of the time the 28-300mm does the job fine.
 
Messages
21,028
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
#9
Ah, too late but this is what I typed...

My first lens when going digital was a Sigma 28-300mm and although it wasn't a cutting edge lens in any way it was a good day out and holiday lens and although the aperture range was limiting I took some of my favourite pictures with that lens. I just didn't expect the technical image quality to be all that good.

I'd imagine that the Canon L is better than that cheap Sigma I had but even so I doubt it'll challenge a shorter range zoom for ultimate technical quality but what it will give is flexibility and the technical compromises may not be visible in a whole picture to the vast majority of people. The aperture range could still be limiting though.
 
Last edited:
Top