Canon 28-300 or 17-55 + 100-400

[alexey_nosal]

Hello,

In advance - sorry for my english :)

Let's not talk about money...

I want to buy lens or set of couple lenses for "traveling" (every day there's a

moment when you may feel sorry for not taking some lens with you)

So, i have a choise to get: Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM

or Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM plus one wide angle lens (i chose

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM becouse its combination of f/2.8 & IS)

I chose those lenses becouse they are pretty fast and image stabilazed,

plus they cover allmost every situation,

my quection is: am i getting equal image quality and sharpness in both variants

or there's something i miss?

Thanks

[tapani]

Well, I've got the second of your choices, and I like it. :-)

The 28-300 would be better only in circumstances where changing lenses (or carrying two bodies) would be problematic for some reason. In particular, I'd find 28mm nowhere near wide enough on a 1.6x crop body (which I presume you have since the 17-55/2.8 won't work otherwise - with a FF body the 28-300 would be much more tempting), and the f/2.8 aperture of the 17-55 is great. Image quality should also be better with the 2-lens set (although I've no direct experience with the 28-300).

 

Of course just one lens would be lighter to carry, but the 28-300 is pretty big by itself. If that's a concern, I'd consider pairing the 17-55 with a 70-300 IS (either the cheap one or the DO).

[anthony_hicks]

I would second the suggestion above, or maybe one of the Canon 70-200 zooms instead, unless you really want a very long reach. Personally, I would find the gap between 55mm and 100mm too large.

[andre_mcnichols]

Depends on what you like to shoot: my walk around lens is a 100-400 and I keep a tamron 17-50 with me for those occasions when I need something wider. For me the gap is not a problem.

 

Andre

[thierry nguyen cuu - nomad]

For travel, I wouldn't recommend the 28-300. It's such a big lens that you may have trouble with the customs and security :)

 

I'd go for the 17-55, it's an L equivalent glass IQ wise.

I'd also recommend the 10-22 EF-S for travel. I used to carry a lot of gears when I travel and found that I need more the (extra) wide than the long.

[William Michael]

Your question implies that you have an APS-C camera, (because you are considering the EF-S 17 to 55 F2.8IS).

 

I would not get the 28 to 300 zoom. It seems to me this lens was designed for the photojournalism / news work, using a full frame 135 format and I do not think the 28mm will be wide enough for travel work on an APS-C camera.

 

If you really think you need the telephoto, I would consider the 70mm to 200 F2.8L to match with the 17 to 55F2.8.

 

I too, think the gap between 55 to 100 is large.

 

If you really think you need reach longer than 200mm get the x1.4MkII or even consider the x2.0MkII

 

I think also you should consider wider, rather than longer, (eg 10 to 22).

 

But as mentioned, it really does depend on what you like to shoot when travelling, and thinking wide for travel is my bias.

 

Also, I guess it depends where you are travelling that dictates if you will have trouble with large lenses etc: I have not had problems.

 

WW