ferdinand Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 I have a truckload of lenses, both fixed focal and zoom, but typically when outand about need a focal range of somewhere between 50 and 300mm (maybe 200 woulddo). I am thinking of getting the 28-300mm L IS lens, because it gives me therange I need. But will it be good enough in terms of sharpness? Would I bebetter off getting the 70-200 2.8 IS? Not ideal in focal range, but maybe Icould live with it... Still, I would prefer the 28-300 if the image quality willstand up to reasonable - if not excessive - scrutiny. Mainly I take landscapes, archtecture and portraits, and some indoor shots. Any advice? Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy_van_eynde Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 Reviews can be found here : http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_28300_3556/index.htm http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-28-300mm-f-3.5-5.6-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m_barbu1 Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 OK, so those are reviews of the 28-300, but what about a comparison to the 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM, as per Ferdinand's request? ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christsloan Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 Personally I think the 70-200L 2.8 would serve you better for the things you listed. Sharper all the way through. If you have a local camera store, you could go in and talk to the sales people. At my store, I will actually take a customer outside and let them try it. Take your camera and a card and take some test shots. Decide for yourself. You could almost for the price buy a back up body and another lens. Remember, if you try it local, buy it local! Canon says, at least one of their tech people say the 70-200 F4 is one of the sharpest in their line. Unless you want the speed of the 2.8. Both are great lenses. I have not seen any results yet from the 28-300. Best of luck to you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brent chadwell Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 First of all, I've never liked super zooms because they sacrifice too much image quality for what you get. I would rather just carry 2 lenses. Second of all, this lens has a push/pull zoom design, which gets dust on the sensor and is a general pain in the a$$. The lens also has severe barrel distortion at 28mm, and pincusion distortion at 300mm. IMO, f/5.6 at 300mm is too slow for my needs. Not to mention this lens is heavy and expensive. I would get a 70-200 IS and a 50mm f/1.4. That will cover most of your needs and give you better image quality for cheaper than the 28-300. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy_van_eynde Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 I know, I know. Also intersitng to know : how would the 28-300 compare to the 70-200 f2.8L IS + 1.4 extender (=280mm) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken munn Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 Starting at 70mm is a real handicap if you want to shoot architecture and landscapes. I'd say you definitely need to start shorter which, for me, would imply a two lens solution (I don't trust super zooms). 24-70 and 70-200. Or the 28-135 IS, and forget the long tele end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_macpherson Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 To respond from (some) experience - I have used the 35-350 (predecessor to the 28=300) for years on a range of EOS film bodies (and now a 1DsMK2 and 1Dmk2). It is a great lens for its range. Yes its slightly soft at 300/350 (so you need to stop well down) and yes it's heavy and expensive....but.....I have been in Arctic conditions and done sweeping vistas at 35mm, zoomed forwards and done close ups at 135mm (1/4 life size) and zoomed to 250mm for compression effects. ALL images published, all images sharp and contrasty with great colour, some of them used full A4 magazine repro. No problems with snow getting in the front whilst changing lenses. Also used it loads on boats with whales - wide shot of people watching, zoom to tele and do close-up of whale blowing, with spray from its breath wafting all over us. Again no problems with crud getting inside either lens or body. I have not had dust inside it either, in over ten (10) years of use. I still use it, and it has earned its purchase price over and over. I will not sell it. Used within its (obvious) limitations it is a very very good performer. The much lauded 24-70 f2.8L is a'sort-of' push pull too - it changes length as its zoomed and 'could' sook in dust. No-one complains about that lens. By all accounts the 28-300 is even better (sharper) than my 35-350. It also has IS. For what you want you will love it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mendel_leisk Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 Another review: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-28-300mm-f-3.5-5.6-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx In the last paragraph, he comes to some conclusions regarding this lens, and the alternatives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doc_nickel Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 I've been using the 28-300 as my main- and only- "L" lens for most of a year. Unfortunately I don't have a 70-200 to compare it to, but in any case, I'm extremely happy with the performance. I needed it for shooting sports- stuck to a relatively narrow sideline which limits "foot focus", I needed to be able to cover action nearly at my feet, or all the way over on the other end of the field. I also only had one body when I bought it, and the speed of the sports often don't give enough time to swap lenses before a particular moment is gone. It was expensive, yes, but it's as much as some combinations; say, the 24-70 and the 70-200 together, with another 100mm of tele to boot. I've gotten excellent results with it on both an XT and the 1D, with several shots having been blown up to poster size and still quite sharp. In my opinion, limited as it is, it's an excellent "do it all" lens. The only drawback being it's much too heavy for a day-to-day "walking around" lens. Doc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lovcom_photo Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 The Canon 28-300L is the worse L zoom Canon makes. At that focal range, there are lots of compromises. Any of the 70-200's are better then 28-300L. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_baker4 Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 I have used the older 35-350L for many years and I find it perfect for the sort of work I do. Yes I tried the 2.8 but I found I was forever taking the converter on and off, or changing the lens as it was not wide enough, going to the wider zoom range and slower speed I agree is a slight compromise, but in the age of digital and the ability to vary your ISO, it is a lot less of an issue, drop the lens down into its sweet spot and it is really good enough. Mount it on a good sturdy monopod and you can go all day. Mount it on a tripod and it is good for close up. I find it saves having to carry a second body. People either love or hate these things, most people who try them, tend to love them (I know there are exceptions). Mine is a real keeper. In desperation you can also fit a 2x converter (non Canon) and with the 35-350 you can play with a 90-900mm monster on your 1D, or near 800mm with the new 28-300, you do not want to do it all the time, but for one of those emergency shots, it will do. I suggest you try and hire one; you may be pleasantly surprised and find it suits the way you work and produces the results you want. How about this one - Canon EOS-1D 1/5000 f/5.6 Focal Length: 350 mm (with 2x converter so 900mm equiv), in a gale. OK it is not great, but it will do...<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark u Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 The lens is really designed with action photojournalists in mind, covering anything from war and riots to earthquake and flood. As such it allows rapid changes of focal length, and a single lens solution to those who need to be highly mobile, with inevitable compromises on image quality. For PJ's getting the shot is much more important than ultimate image quality - so long as it's good enough for a half page spread on the front page at newsprint quality, the job is done. Obviously, it turns in better results than consumer hyperzooms that span a similar range of focal lengths, but it costs a lot more than say a 28-70, 70-200 f/4 and 1.4x TC or Sigma 100-300 f/4 that would leave it in the dust for image quality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodney_gold1 Posted June 3, 2006 Share Posted June 3, 2006 A Short synopsis Only makes sense on a FF camera where it is a TRUE wa to tele zoom and is a fantastic one lens solution , very good sharp contrasty pics (well on my copy that is) Close focussing thru the zoom range is one of its strengths , 300mm at 70cm! IS and AF work real well. Whoever designed the switchgear should be shot , you have to tape em to stop the switches from changing position. It vignettes badly wide open thru the focal length , is extremely heavy and very obtrusive and needs a batt grip to balance it out. Lens hood is a disaster. I have the 70-200 2.8 as well , on a FF camera it does beat the 28-300 in terms of IQ and so it should , it is however nowhere near as versatile. However If used on a crop body , the IQ of the 70-200 and the 28-300 in that range is almost identical , the bugbear is the 28-300 is at about 4.5 or worse at 70mm so you cant get the bokeh of the 70-200 2.8 (I dont have the f4). Plenty discussions about this lens on this board and others and some extensive reviews on Fred miranda and so forth , quite a bit written about it on the net. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yakim_peled1 Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 I think it is too expensive. For the same amount of money I'd rather have a two lens setup. Happy shooting, Yakim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now