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.
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.Thanks I have 24-105 and 70-200 2.8 which I have no intention of getting rid of anytime soon .......
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.It must be a decent lens as it costs enough brand new
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.
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.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.