Is EF 28 - 300 mm f/3.5 - 5.6 L IS USM a good travel lens?

[kathy_fu]

I have a Canon EOS 5D with a EF 24-105 f/4L IS USM and Sigma 20-40 f/2.8 (I

can't believe I let the sales lady talk me into buying this lens). I would

like to know if the EF 28-300 is a good travel lens to take or am I wasting my

money since I already have a wide angle and a general lens?

 

Has anybody used this lens? does it offer sharp pictures?

 

Thank you in advance.

[thierry nguyen cuu - nomad]

I'd reccomand to travel light in terms of photo gears.

 

The 28-300 is not a very discrete lightweight lens

 

Because you already have a very good lense for the 5D, if you need a longer reach, the 70-200 f4 IS is a good performer or even a 70-200 f2.8 IS. These two are shorter then the one you mentioned above but once again what are your needs?

 

What do you shoot? How heavy are you ready to carry in your bag (don't forget your airweight allowance though if travel by air)

 

 

Go there if you need a review on this lens: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-28-300mm-f-3.5-5.6-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

[PuppyDigs]

It's great if you don't mind carrying a great white bazooka. Moreover, airport security may

confuse it with a thermol nuclear device.

[charles_lipton]

Hi

 

I had a similar issue. I have the 5D and the 24-105mm. I also had both 70-200mm's; f/2.8 IS and the f/4. The f/4 IS wasn't out then. I sold both 70-200mm's and bought the 100-400mm. I now have 24-400mm in only two L lenses. I couldn't see owning a 105-200mm f/2.8 IS worth $1500.

 

Then again, it all depends on what you are shooting. For portraiture, the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS is unbeatable. I just felt it wasn't worth the 100mm reach over the 24-105mm and for a little less I had a 400mm reach with L glass.

 

Like indicated above travel light. And, depends on where you'll be going. If to Europe where there are small confined streets, perhaps the 16-35mm f/2.8L would be more appropriate or the 17-40mm L which is an awsome lens on the 5D. If you're traveling to Alaska or Canada and after images of wildlife 400mm won't be enough or at least its at the shorter end of what you'll wish you had. My point is that for most of my travels now the 24-105mm fits 90% of the bill. You might also consider a fast prime such as a 35mm f/2 or the 50mm f/1.4 is you really think you'll need a faster lens than the f/4 IS.

 

It just all depends on what you're shooting and where.

 

Travel light and enjoy. Like Puppy said, the 28-300mm L ain't small.

 

Chuck

[coolmingli]

You already have a 5D and 24-105 IS, why not add a 70-300 DO IS or 70-200 F/4 IS?

The 28-300 IS is a very heavy expensive lens, and it is slow, you will need a fast prime for some night or indoor shot. The main advantage of it is you don't have to change the lens on the field. I think for a lady, the 5D+ 24-105 plus 70-300 combo is a better choice(unless you are Grace Jones type).

[dogbert]

I think its built more for photojournalists and paparazzi that need an all-purpose lens with professional build, but where image quality is only secondary.

 

It would probably be lighter, cheaper, and superior quality to add one of canon's better telezooms assuming you can live with changing lenses.

[coolmingli]

I don't think the 28-300 lens's image quality is only secondary, especially when you process the images thru DXO.

[david_lau3]

My travel kit is 24-105/f4 IS and 70-200/f4 IS. Most of my subjects are not moving (landscape) or not moving fast (people on the street), IS helps a lot. With IS I can use f8 most of the time for sufficient DOF and good lens performance, while maintaining low ISO.

[david_lau3]

Back to the question.

 

I tried 28-300 IS in Canon showroom. It is far too big and heavy to carry around as a single walkaround travel lens. Also, its image quality is no match to 24-105 and 70-200.

[robin_sibson1]

The 28~300, and its predecessor the 35~350, don't attract much discussion here because very few users are asking a question to which they are, or were, the answer. They are roughly the same size as the 100~400, and also are push-pull zooms. I have a 100~400 and use it for wildlife work, but I could not imagine having something that size and weight as my standard lens. You've got the 24~105, sounds like a 17~40 and 70~200/4IS would complete a nice travel kit - lose the Sigma, to which you don't sound to be attached, and if you still want f/2.8 get the 16~35 instead of the 17~40. And/or slip a 50/1.8 into the bottom of the bag.

[dcheung]

28-300 is an extremely good lens if you plan on shooting from a helicopter with an open door. Lots of wind and lots of vibrations means you don't want to be switching lenses and risk dropping it out of the plane.

[yakim_peled1]

>> I can't believe I let the sales lady talk me into buying this lens

 

I can. She must have showered you from her favors......

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[maxasst]

I just received my 28-300 L IS USM lens last night and tried it out taking pics of my kids hockey for about 5 minutes. It is big and heavy, so it goes in an extra large holster pack with broad shoulder strap so carrying it around is easier. It does attract attention, this time to an advantage. Other parents in the vicinity would offer me their spot for a better angle. Did I say it's big? It is so big that I felt I was Moses parting a sea of people when I pulled it out of the bag. Using it is so nice. Hockey players move fast and when they skate towards me, I can now get shots I would have missed or just wouldn't try with my 70-200. I planned on using this along with a 16mm fisheye for travel. It is far more convenient now, weighs less and occupies less space than my other previous combinations of lens.

[anson_ko]

I have both 24-105 and 28-300IS. When I went travel to italy, I bought the 28-300. It's an awesome lens. I love it for one lens solution. I can take pics that no one can in our tour. Image quality is acceptable coz it's just my travel pics and I dont' intend to blow it up 100x. With the IS, I can take very good pics inside the churches. Yes, it's heavy but I don't mind. For local shooting, I use the 24-105. I strongly recommand this lens if you dont' mind the weight for one lens solution. Compare to my 200 1.8, na, 28-300 is light weight :-)

[anson_ko]

some people may tell you to bring 2-3 lenses, but I don't like to change lens when travelling. So, you call.

[yakim_peled1]

May I be the devil's advocate? Buying a Nikon D80 + Nikon 18-200 VR is significantly cheaper and lighter than buying the 28-300 alone.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[anson_ko]

or she can get the sigma 28-300 f4.5-6.3 at $2xx. That would be the least expensive solution. I dont' mind having lower quality pictures for my travel pictures coz I dont' intend to enlarge it. If quality is a must, 28-300IS is not her first choice. convenience vs quality.

[kathy_fu]

Thank you all for sharing your knowledge!

[nathan_wong3]

I have the same problem. I need a telephoto for travel, and like both the 28-300 and the 100-400. The 70-200 doesn't give me enough reach, so I need at least 300, and want an L lens for build, rather than IQ because I like to adventure around with my camera, and it sees harsh environments (so not having to change lenses is also a plus). I don't like the idea of such a bulky lens always on my camera, but if I got a 100-400, then I would have to carry that, as well as my 24-105 which as a kit, would be even heavier! Maybe someone could offer some advice as I have not used either lens.

 

I have also kept the fact that the 100-400 can take a 1.4x TC, in the back of my mind, which might come in handy in Alaska and for dangerous animals so I can stay far away. I don't do enough wildlife to warrant a longer prime, like the 500mm or 600mm. I want the tele for compressed landscapes and say, shooting people and buildings from a kayak in Vietnam (as an example).

 

Thanks a lot.