17-85 on 1.6x or 28-300 on FF

[dcheung]

I've been hearing people say how their 17-85 is an awesome all around

lens and it barely leaves the body.

 

What I find interesting is why is the 17-85 such a good all around

lens for 1.6x cameras while the 28-300 is not a good all around lens

for full frame bodies?

 

Do anyone use 28-300 on their 1DsIorII?

[vincent_j_m]

Comparing the 17-85 with a 28-300 makes absolutely no sense. Compare an 18-200 with the 28-300 or compare the 17-85IS with the 28-135IS. All 28-300's I've used are junk.

[coolmingli]

"28-300 is not a good all around lens for full frame bodies"

Says who?

The 28-300 L IS works excellent on 1DsMKII, much better than 17-85 IS on 20D.

[dcheung]

I agree with the inputs, 28-300 on a FF body should be way way better than 17-85 on a 1.6x body but u almost never hear people talk about it where as u hear lots of ppl talking about using the 17-85 as the all around lens.

[dcheung]

"Comparing the 17-85 with a 28-300 makes absolutely no sense"

 

of course it makes sense.

 

you actually read my thread, you'd realize it's about why nobody talks about the 28-300 as a all around lens.

 

lots of ppl talk about the 17-85 as an all around lens on 1.6x bodies.

if that's the case, then 28-300 should be a better all around lens for FF digital or 35mm bodies, but nobody seems to talk about that.

 

that's what the thread is about.

[john_stark]

The 28-300 is a great lens, the people who put it down just don't know how to use it properly, that is NOT the lenses or Canon's problem. I have one and use it on MK II N as well as on the old 1D, but recently got to see it used on a 5D and 1Ds MKII and it did exceptionally well on them. In fact the people who own th 5d and 1Ds MKII are buying this lens now that they tried mine, they loved it.

I bought it so I wouldn't have to change lenses all the time, especially at races.

I have used it in very dusty enviroments and get no dust internally because I use it properly.

 

JS

[marknagel]

Are you talking about the Canon 28-300L IS? If so, most people who have FF digital cameras are typically pros or very serious into quality and speed (f/2.8 zooms or faster, sharper primes). Since the FF cameras (1Ds) can show flaws in a lens so much more, they typically go with smaller zooms. The more the zoom (28-300 = 10x) typically the less sharp at the extreme ends. Another reason you don't hear a lot of people using this is it is a $2200 lens that may be good, but for that price, you can get 2 or 3 lenses that would be excellent.

 

If you are NOT and talking about any 28-300L IS, and talking about a 3rd party (Tamron or Sigma) they suck. I owned both and they are very soft, slow inconsistant AF, and slow. It would be like buying a Plasma HDTV and putting bunny ears antenna on it.

 

m

[rodney_gold1]

The 28-300 L IS is an exceptional single lens solution on a FF dslr , it is pin sharp and has amazing range. My 28-300 is almost permanently attached to my 5d. The 2 lenses are not comparable however as the 28-300 is very expensive and massively heavy and bulky unlike the 17-85 which is much more of a walkabout lens and has nowhere near the range. The 24-105 is the comparable lens to the 17-85 for a FF camera

[ron c sunshine coast,qld,a]

You don't hear people talking about how good a 28-300 is because ** very few people can tollerate the lack of sharpness ** !

<P>Even when used properly they simply don't quite give good enough results -FOR MOST USERS.

<BR>(Of course if you are one that doesn't demand razor sharp images then you should ignor these comments,buy a 28-300 and enjoy :) !)

<P>You often hear about how good the 17-85 lens is because it gives sharp enough images to please most users.it really does give better sharpness than the 28-300's,something even full frame can't make up for.

 

<P>n.b -of course all of my above comments assume you are talking about the normal hyperzooms.As mentioned by others,canon makes a professional model 28-300 zoom.That lens is very good but also hidiously expensive:(

[john_stark]

Ron that is BS! I have had excellent results with my 28-300. I have some shots with it I have crops at 100% view and they are as sharp as any other top lens....but then I know how to use it, apparently you don't.

[marknagel]

Attack people not ideas...or is it the other way around?

 

m

[awindsor]

John, <P>

 

Maybe you should read Ron's post. Incidentally there is a LuminousLandscape review of the 28-300/3.5-5.6 IS L. <P>

 

<A HREF="http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/Canon-28-300.shtml">Luminous Landscape Review.</A><P>

 

Michael Reichmann wasn't particularly taken with the lens but clearly he just didn't know how to use it (or the software he used for the test). <P>

 

Very few people own this lens (I have never even seen one) since it is big (3.7lbs) and expensive. The 17-85 is relatively cheap and light (16.8 oz) and qualifies as a great "walk-around" lens.

[dcheung]

ya guys,... chill, relax.

 

I am refering to the canon 28-300L lens, not any generic one from like sigma or tamron or something.

[jake_cole]

As mentioned, the 17-85IS is almost an exact match for the 28-135IS. And that lens is talked about as being a great general purpose lens on a FF camera. It was probably the number one talked about GP lens when it was released and for a couple of years after. So that clears that up. Some people always wanted a little more quality and I think digital, and the newer lenses have slowed the talk, not to mention most digitals are not FF. The new 24-105mm I think will be come the GP lens for the FF crowd.

 

The 28-300L lens is a lens designed for photo journalists and those who have it because it fits their needs/style love it. It would be a great general purpose lens for many amature photographers, except it is likely too big and too costly for many.