28-300L lens..

[andre_stull]

Thinking about purchasing the 28-300L lens. Feel as though I can get more

spontaneous shots quicker for street, kids on playground etc. Will be using on

5D body. Anyone using this lens and if so how is the push/pull design and

weight?

[JDMvW]

Canon: Max. Diameter x Length, Weight --3.6" x 7.2", 3.7 lb. / 92 x 184mm, 1670g.

There are lots bigger and heavier lenses, but this is fair sized despite Canon describing it as "compact". It's not exactly inconspicuous, but it has pretty good reach too.

[music man5]

How does the 28-300 do under artifical lights, as there would be on an athletic field?

[zml]

I did use this lens only twice: soft beyond 200 mm unless closed down to f/11 or so. Same below 50-60 mm, esp in the corners on a full-frame rig. Vignetting and CA were there but manageable. Contrast was mostly good.

 

 

Sponataneous shooting? Never mind - I'd rather handhold my 300/2.8 all day long: a typical howitzer is easier to handhold than the 28-300. It is a big and unwieldy lens, good IMO only for very specialized applications when convenience is more important than shooting comfort and - for most part - image quality. If you are looking for a universal, "one lens" solution - the lens in question ain't no silver bullet. I'd rather use a 50/1.8 as my only lens than buy the 28-300. And forget about using it for sports under artificial light, esp. in dimly-lit amateur arenas: f/5.6 is not nearly enough to achieve a decent shutter speed even at ISO 3200. I'd go with a typical 2 zoom solution: 24-70 and 70-200 (plus perhaps a TC)if I were you.

[steve_dunn2]

<p>Same as any other slow-ish zoom lens (it's f/3.5-5/6, IIRC) in the same conditions. In some cases, you may indeed need that kind of zoom range for athletic activities, but in a lot of cases, a lens with a smaller zoom range, and probably a faster maximum aperture, might be a better choice.</p>

[lee_smith2]

I have the 28-300 and a 70-200 2.8. I use the 28-300 for day time motorsports events and the 70-200 at night. Its a great all around lens during the day if you don't mind the weight.

[denny_wells]

I have the predecessor to this lens - the 35-350L.

 

I would not use this for a walk around spontaneous lens if you will be hiking or leaving it around your neck all day - it's a heavy lens. It's also very big and very white and therefore VERY conspicuous. The push/pull design is not ideal, but once you have the tightening ring figured out, it becomes much better.

 

For me this was the first L lens I ever owned, and I was immediately struck by how silent and fast focussing this lens was, and how sharp the images were. I'm sure there are sharper lenses, and I'm sure Canon made some compromise in image quality to achieve such a broad zoom range, but your technique will need to be truely excellant before the image quality limitations in this lens affect your work. This is a great way to cover a really broad focal range with only one lens.

[anson_ko]

I have been using this lens for more than a year and it's my favorite lens. Unless you enlarge the image on a 20x24 or larger, image is very acceptable IMO. It is heavy with my 5D, but I never miss a shot. In low light, there could be some AF hunting and I use 'one shot' center AF. When I travel long, this is the only lens I bring. It covers everything.

[tdigi]

Has anyone used the Tamron 28-300?

 

http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-28-300mm-Vibration-Compensation-

Aspherical/dp/B000V6ON8I/ref=pd_bbs_1?

ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1207176080&sr=8-1

[denny_wells]

Tommy -

 

I have another "I've used the predecessor" anecdote - I used the Tamron 28-200 for several years on my old Elan.

 

It certainly covered a broad range - great bang for the buck in terms of coverage and compact size on the front of the camera. However, image quality was always ho-hum. I got the Canon 35-350L second-hand as a replacement - and have not looked back. The Tamron certainly was more compact and easier to carry around, but the Canon produces dramatically sharper more vibrant images.

[rocco1]

I had the Tamron 28-300, it was the last lens that made me fedup and started to stick to Canon L-range of lenses. Although the Canon 28-300 has a lot agains him like weight and f5.6, it will still deliver the goods. Might not be the best choice, but it is the best "one lens" choice if you really need to cover the wide to tele range. Personally, I would get a 70-200 f.2IS. Good all round and for what you have in mind, you might not miss the 20-70 range all that much.

[music man5]

Michael Liczbanski, I was looking at this lens because I shoot marching band competitions. A bands show will be from eight to ten minutes long and stopping to change lenses usually means you miss something. The 28-300mm range would be ideal for me, it would allow whole band shots but give me the zoom I need for individual shots. Last season I used two cameras, one with a 70-200mm f/2.8 and the other a 35mm f/2. But switching between cameras is not always easy either and adds to the weight of the bag!

 

Most of these competitions start during the daytime but conclude under the lights. So naturally the aperture concerns me.

 

I suspect I will rent this lens in the fall and give it a test.

[john_macpherson]

I own the 35-350 Canon, almost 12 years hard use, never failed, has paid for itself several times over. Yes it has obvious limitations, but used within those limits it offers huge freedoms. Used sensibly it is also very sharp and has fantastic colour rendition and contrast. As a one lens outfit its fantastic, and with a short extension tube gives great highly detailed close-ups.

 

www.john-macpherson-photography.com

[andrew_gott]

I had the Tamron 28-300 VC, I returned it after about three weeks, the autofocus died on me... It didn't like being used in cold (sub zero) weather. I made the mistake of trying an L lens to replace it- Though not the 28-300, I ended up with a 100-400. I now have an L addiction that can't be cured... There was NO comparison to the Tamron.

[andre_stull]

Thx Andrew, I was also looking at the Tamron VC b/c of it's size, range and cost. I have 15 fisheye, 50 1.4 and 70-300 DO. They are light weight, fit in a small bag and work great on my camera. However, at times my 70-300DO is not wide enough or 50 not long enough or 15 to wide.

 

With the 28-300, I could just carry one lens and have a great range of focal lengths. There may be less IQ, but it beats not getting the picture.