Canon 28 - 300mm f/3.5-5.6

mlk19569 · April 25, 2008

I'm thinking of making the investment in this lens. Yikes! I find that my current telephoto (Tamron) doesn't have the crispness or the speed that my other Canon lenses have and so I'm thinking of ponying up some serious $$ for the lens. I have some trips coming up this year and I don't want to come back and be disappointed in the quality of my pictures. KWIM? :eek1

Here's the info on the lens.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBar&A=getItemDetail&Q=&sku=319784&is=USA&si=rev#anchorToReadReviews

Anyway, anyone have any experience with this lens and is it worth the investment?

TIA for your input.

claudermilk · April 25, 2008

Photozone likes it a lot: http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Canon%20EOS%20Lens%20Tests/45-canon-eos-aps-c/191-canon-ef-28-300mm-f35-56-usm-l-is-test-report--review

mlk19569 · April 25, 2008

Hmmm
Now that I think about it, do I go that big, or should I split it up into smaller lenses? Like a 24 - 105 and a 100 - 400?

AAAARRRGGGGG It's terrible having too many good choices!

Ric Grupe · April 25, 2008

mlk19569 wrote:

Now that I think about it, do I go that big, or should I split it up into smaller lenses? Like a 24 - 105 and a 100 - 400?

AAAARRRGGGGG It's terrible having too many good choices!

This choice gives you more reach and better overall optical quality. Just gotta make up your mind if you want to change your lens.

BTW: I have them both and have nothing negative to say about either.

Photoskipper · April 25, 2008

The new 70 -300 IS sounds interesting. I am considering to get one for my travelling kit. Just put the 24-105 on the body and carry the 70-300 in a lens pouch. It saves me a lot of weight and yet have greater coverage.
The 70-200 F2.8IS is great but just too heavy to carry on board. The strict 7Kg carry-on restriction in some domestic flight is killing me.

ChatKat · May 6, 2008

Weighty and White
I have a case full of L glass and I did not want to travel with it - by the end of a trip I get weary of carrying three lenses. I also don't want to shoot with a big whilte lense and call attention to myself all the time and yet I want to have a range of focal lengths. When I was shooting with my 20d, I had the Tamron 18-200 and I took it with me to Italy. I wasn't happy with the brightness and I did not get as many great shots as I do with the 24-105 and 70-200 combination. But I did get some really good shots that I am happy with. And I never got camera weight weary. I sold the 18-200 with the camera when I bought my 5d.

So I find myself now in the same situation and I bought the 28-300 Tamron lens with is (or VR or whatever that is called). I do miss the 2.8, but again, I will also take one other brighter lens - probably a 85 1.8 or the 50 1.8; I am leaving for a very photogenic trip shortly; I am sure I will get keepers that I am happy with. After all, some travel shots I have taken with disposables have made it to my portfolio so I know I am taking my most important piece of equipment - my eye and my knowledge. It's not the gear but the photographer.

ziggy53 · May 6, 2008

ChatKat wrote:

... I know I am taking my most important piece of equipment - my eye and my knowledge. It's not the gear but the photographer.

True.

Take care and good shooting.

claudermilk · May 7, 2008

It's not the color of the lens that gains the majority of the attention, but the size. My black 24-70 gets just as much attention (in fact has probably gotten more comments) than the big white 70-200/2.8L.

Manfr3d · May 7, 2008

Only buy it if you want one do it all lens. The Digital Picture has well written review:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-28-300mm-f-3.5-5.6-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

GSPeP · May 8, 2008

I have this lens and as long as I live (and as long as it works or it doesn't get stolen), I will never sell it.

Some examples (these were the first I took with it) can be found here:
http://gspep.smugmug.com/gallery/423578_sxgMB
These were all taken with in combination with a Canon EOS 300D

About 600 pictures in combination with the 1D Mk III can be found here:
http://steendorp.smugmug.com/gallery/4378444_zNGwK
Motorcycle meeting of last sunday (including a lot of picures of a stunt team)

It also performs great in combination with a 5D

ChatKat · May 8, 2008

claudermilk wrote:

It's not the color of the lens that gains the majority of the attention, but the size. My black 24-70 gets just as much attention (in fact has probably gotten more comments) than the big white 70-200/2.8L.

That's true! I was in France and wandered into a car event (Tour de Normandy) with a parade. Found a street corner to watch it and shoot - the cars were so unusual to me - an American semi car buff. Well, all the driver's saw me and my husband next to me with the 24-70's on our cameras - and they slowed down for us - thought we were press.

rpcrowe · May 9, 2008

My travel kit...
I shoot with two cameras: 30D and 350D and carry two lenses for my general travel photography: 17-55 f/2.8 IS and 70-200mm f/4L IS (plus 1.4x TC).

These two lenses give me the focal range I need for general photography. I have longer and shorter lenses which I will carry for specific instances but, the 17-55mm f/2.8L and the 70-200mm f/4L (with 1.4x TC) covers me for most general shooting at a relatively light weight for the focal range and image quality.

Zigot · May 10, 2008

What tamron 28-300 do you have?
I'm in a market for a 28-300 also but won't have the budget for this Canon.

Photoskipper · May 12, 2008

just realized that the 28-300 F2.8 is so expensive, big and heavy. It is definitely not an ideal walk about lens on the camera even though it can cover much wider focal lenght with excellent IQ.

mrcoons · May 13, 2008

Photoskipper wrote:

just realized that the 28-300 F2.8 is so expensive, big and heavy. It is definitely not an ideal walk about lens on the camera even though it can cover much wider focal lenght with excellent IQ.

Unfortunately the only problem for me is the expense! The Canon 28-300 weighs 3.7 lbs which is only a little more than my Sigma 80-400 that weighs in at 3.6 lbs. I've carried the Sigma around all day (well till the sun starts to go down then it goes back in the bag!) with no problems.

But with one child entering college and 1 to go after that I'll never own one of these lenses anyway! :cry

Photoskipper · May 14, 2008

mrcoons wrote:

Unfortunately the only problem for me is the expense! The Canon 28-300 weighs 3.7 lbs which is only a little more than my Sigma 80-400 that weighs in at 3.6 lbs. I've carried the Sigma around all day (well till the sun starts to go down then it goes back in the bag!) with no problems.

But with one child entering college and 1 to go after that I'll never own one of these lenses anyway! :cry

Just to give myself some reasons to consider the lens:
1. The weight - the 3.7 lbs is consider reasonable. The 70-200F2.8 IS is already 3.2 lbs and the 24 -105 F4 is 13 oz (almost a pound). The 28-300 covers more than that 2 lenses and weight totally 4 lbs. I can save 0.3 lbs.
2. The price is US 2188 for 28 -300. The 70-200 is already 1699 and 24 -105 is about 1000. So the new lens is actually cheaper.

I am telling my wife (my chief financial controller in the house) that I can trade in the 2 old lenses and get one new lens just need to top up a little bit.

Canon 28 - 300mm f/3.5-5.6

Comments