Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 L

[paul_rawlins]

Hi all, I am new to the forum. I have got a Canon 400D and a Canon 24-70 f2.8L

(great)and Canon 70-200 f4L (good). I shoot a variety of subjects, mostly

outdoors. I am thinking about trading up to a 70-200 f2.8L and getting a

100-400L or 300mm prime as I like to shoot wildlife. These lenses get a lot of

mention on here. But no-one seems to mention the 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 L lens.

How come? Is it trying to be too much in one lens and suffering as a result?

Or would it be worth getting for that bit of extra versatility and length? Or

am I better off getting the 70-200 2.8 and a 1.4ex? On paper that combination

looks a better bet than the 28-300 (280mm f4 vs 300mm f5.6)? Any thoughts would

be appreciated.

[andrew robertson]

The feeling is that it's pretty good, but way more expensive and not as sharp as say, the 200

f/2.8 L and the 300 f/4L IS together.

[brucecyr]

One problem I see is that you aren't making level field comparisons -- the costs of the bundles you suggest aren't comparable, which often plays a big role in the way many of us budget for gear. Also I sense wide-angle doesn't play a big role in your shooting -- it seems teles are more of what you are looking for, but that doesn't seem reflected in your thinking.

 

The 28-300 is pretty darn big and not nearly as sharp as the 24-70 and 70-200 you have now -- or may have if you trade up to the f2.8 version of the latter. Of course, it might be convenient if you didn't have those lenses. You might want to check out a review:

 

http://photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_28300_3556/index.htm

 

If costs aren't critical, but IQ and aperture speed are, avoid a TC and think about the 70-200 f2.8 and the 300 f4. Or maybe the 400 f5.6 if you're willing to compromise on speed (although note that Bob Atkins has hinted its due for rebirth in IS form). While the 100-400 has a place in some bags, it doesn't make much nearly as much sense if you already have a 70-200 -- half the zoom range is redundant!

 

To be direct to the point of rudeness, maybe you should rationalize your thinking about your lens plans lest you wind up wasting money.

[paul_rawlins]

Good advice Bruce! Thanks for the responses so far. I agree on the waste of zoom range if theres a 70-200 in the bag - spending the money on a 300 prime makes more sense. I didn't mention wide angles here as I was just wondering what people thought of the all in one 28-300 - it just seems to get very little mention and I was wondering why.

[beauh44]

HI Paul, I think you hit on it in the beginning; as a general rule, variable aperture, "do-it-all" zooms typically are under-performers in terms of sharpness and distortion. And while it is an "L" lens, I suspect (but admittedly don't own one and can't say for sure) that it will probably get "whooped" by two or three much less expensive primes and/or a constant aperture "L" zoom or two. Even the well regarded 24-104mm f/4L IS has quite a bit of distortion in spots. It's just really tricky to design and manufacture a lens that goes from rather wide to rather long and do it well - at least withoug costing an arm and a leg. Good luck!

[beauh44]

I thought it might be best if I took a look at a review of the 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L and found one at LL: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/Canon-28-300.shtml

 

It looks like Michael Reichman concluded what I suspected. Some quotes:

 

"A wide zoom and a separate tele zoom seem to make more sense for my purposes. When this great a range of focal lengths are needed the size and weight can be considerations. At least with a two or three lens solution the ones not being used can be carried in a shoulder bag. Here you are forced to carry and shoot with the full and considerable weight and bulk of this lens all the time."

 

"I also found the supplied lens shade to not be very effective, especially at the long end of the zoom range. An effective shade for a 200-300mm lens needs to be quite long to reduce flare, and because the supplied shade needs to avoid vignetting at the 28mm focal length it is essentially useless much of the time. The lens is also not compatible with Canon's 1.4X or 2X Extenders."

 

"Chromatic aberration measures higher at all focal lengths than I expected from a lens in the price range. Distortion at medium and telephoto settings was moderate, but was quite strong at the wide end. It ranges from strong barrel distortion at the wide end to modest pincushion distortion at the long end of its focal length range."

 

"Vignetting with this lens is reasonable at both 70mm and 300mm focal lengths. At 28mm it is surprisingly high until the lens is stopped down to at least f/8. This is not a lens that I would want to use at its wide angle settings with the aperture wide open."

 

Mr. Reichman's "bottom line" on the 28-300mm:

 

"It's big, it's heavy and it's expensive. All aspects of performance at the wide end of the lens' focal range are modest, though it improves to quite decent levels at mid and long focal lengths. I am certain that there are photographers who will find that this lens' performance meets their needs, and for whom its physical and financial challenges are acceptable. But for many photographers two separate high quality zoom lens may well prove to be a preferable solution."

 

I'm sure it's probably less expensive now but when the above review was done in 2004 the price was $2,400. That's a LOT of money to throw at what appears to be a mediocre-performing, push-pull, "L" zoom and probably goes a long way to explain why it may not be exactly flying off your camera dealer's shelves. ;-)

[William Michael]

> But no-one seems to mention the 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 L lens. How come? <

 

Re the EF28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM vs. other options:

 

I once (in 1996) considered buying the predecessor to this lens, (35 to 350mm F3.5 to F5.6L USM) and I have used that lens.

 

I think there are many elements to this question, and perhaps more are theoretical than practical: by that I mean this particular lens, and the one you are now considering, has fewer practical applications to professional photographers and is beyond the $ reach of many amateur seeking, for whatever reason, the `L` glass.

 

Having said that, this (type of) lens is unique: and as such, its applications are limited. The `negative` points are weight, price, speed & comparative image quality.

 

So why was I considering it? As a one stop shop on a single (film) body, specific application: Reportage and Visual Diary across various technical sites, during a three week trip through Asia, including, Vietnam, Taiwan, China, Japan, Guam and Philippines. The rationale was that as there were going to be many check points and inspection stations on the way we would travel as light as possible, and even with appropriate credentials to take photographs as a press member of the accredited group doing the tour, the fewer items presented for inspection the quicker the processing etc. (In the end I took two bodies, [made me feel much more comfortable] and two zooms, wide and medium/long and one flash. Carrying them both all the time on me was OK, perhaps more comfortable than the one big weight would have been).

 

Now I am not saying this is the only application of this type of lens, it would be quite suitable as a one stop shop for travel or newspaper photography, (mostly in good light), where image quality at `medium high` is acceptable and also for someone who doesn`t mind lugging it around, but had the necessity of lugging only one thing around.

 

Also it seems there are not a lot of people who really have the requirement of such a wide focal range on one lens, most of us have a niche in which we sit because that is what we like, or that is what we do for a living and other factors of lens choice are far more important because of those conditions: and those who might require such a lens, are like me, when I was looking at a specific application ONLY, and of those considering such a lens, before spending that money, really SERIOUSLY consider the pros and cons of ALL the other options, like I did.

 

Having said all that, if I had the same job again and the option of the replacement model EF28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM, which is the lens in question, I think my decision would be far more difficult, because of the IS, but that comes at about 300gms heavier, making the monster 1670gms.

 

Still, if then was now, I think even if I DID NOT want the security of two bodies, and wanted to travel really light, I would decide what range of focal length was more important, get that zoom and carry a prime in my pocket, and thus get more speed:

eg

 

1. 16 to 35mm and a 50mm or 85mm prime

 

2. 70 to 200mm and a 50mm or 35mm prime

 

Hopefully the above might shed some light on an application of this particular lens, IMO it is not a lens for you from the information you provided in the question: an actual experience often more easily highlights the benefits and shortcomings, that was my intention with the above.

 

As Bruce C correctly wrote first up > One problem I see is that you aren't making level field comparisons <

 

and further he concluded, as I also do > Also I sense wide-angle doesn't play a big role in your shooting -- it seems teles are more of what you are looking for, but that doesn't seem reflected in your thinking. <

 

So my bottom line re your whole question:

 

> I am thinking about trading up to a 70-200 f2.8L. <

 

I would agree and suggest you SERIOUSLY consider if the IS version is worth the money to your applications.

 

 

> getting a 100-400L <

 

I would not suggest this lens for the applications you have outlined, effectively you are going to use the 200 to 400mm range and for that you are to be penalized about two stops, (assuming you get the 70 to 200mmm F2.8), and from my experience the 100 to 400 zoom is not crystal after about 300mm, I have not made a direct comparison but I reckon a x1.4II Tele converter on the 70 to 200, used at 200 (eff: 280mm) would be better and you have (about) an extra stop. I am sure the archives here would link to a direct comparison, I think I have seen a few references.

 

> 300mm prime as I like to shoot wildlife <

 

IMO yes, good choice, I am guessing IS F4, if you get the x1.4II Tele converter that makes a 420mm at F5.6 and autofocus and IS, I understand is fully functional.

 

In summary bringing the 28 to 300L zoom into the equation above is sorting apples with gorillas (i.e. not even oranges), it would be far more logical to throw the 400m F5.6L into the mix.

 

WW

 

 

[friedemann_wachsmuth]

Great comments above and not a lot to add. Nevertheless, I want to contribute with my

subjective 2 cents:

I sold my 24-105/4 L and my 70-300 DO to get the 28-300 instead. Price and weight

were about the same as the two together -- with one MAJOR advantage: No lens swapping

necessary!

 

I just realized when walking through the streets or travelling that I kinda always had the

wrong lens on my 5D -- once I had them exchanged, it was often too late to shoot what I

wanted. Also, I found the distortion of the 24-105 far too heavy (especiall on a full frame

chip and at wide angle), so subjectively can not consider the 28-300 as worse.

 

Long story short: For me, the advantage of always having the right focal length available

beats the maybe not absolute prime optics fact by far. The 28-300 is still incredibly good,

a little vignetting I can correct easily with ACR, its slight distortion in PS (if necessary). The

push-pull zoom with friction control is incredibly fast and precise once you got used to it,

the near distance of 70cm is a real plus too, the IS is fantastic, AF in fast mode (2.5m to

infinite) is hard to beat wrt speed and accuracy, and the f4-5.6 I can compensate easily

with setting my low-noise 5D to higher ISO.

 

For small DOF and prime bokeh, I would always take a fast fixed focal length anyway.

[anson_ko]

When the only choice is one lens, I take the 28-300L. Usually travel with 5D. I also have the 24-105, 70-200 2.8. it's a lot of weight for 2-4 lenses and the time to interchange them. Convienence vs quality+weight. my 2 cents.

[paul_rawlins]

Thanks for all the feedback guys. From what's been said, it sounds like this is what I would term a 'safari' lens - that is, one to use when the situation might demand a range of focal lengths but the conditions don't allow a lot of practical lens changing. But since the last safari I went on was in 1986, I think I'll stick to 70-200 and save for a decent 300mm prime. Cheers!

[brucecyr]

Looking back, my post sounds a bit sharp, but I'm grateful you took it so well.

 

As William W and others point out, the 28-300 is appropriate in some situations -- its not a bad lens, but it just didn't seem to represent the best use of your resources.