Views on the 28-300mm f/3.5-5-6 L IS

[j_hickton]

<p>My current setup is a 7D and 17-55mmIS lens, and for my next investment i want to get a quality longer focal length zoom i was looking into the 70-200, but i was wondering what people think of the 28-300. Plus': it's more versatile and would mean i wouldn't have to change lenses as much for close up or wider shots. So does anyone have any experience of using this lens, and if so what's it like?</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>28mm is NOT for "wider shots" on on a 7D, remember the 1.6X factor. It's a "normal" focal length on a APS-C camera.<br /> IMHO, you'd do better to stick with some shorter focal length range, as the extra long zooms come at a price, even on L lenses--there just have to be many compromises in how well they cover any specific focal length. If you've spent the money for a 17-55mm (NOT the kit lens), I'd imagine you'd find it hard to live with these compromises. You might want to consider the 100-400mm IS even though it is an older design, but I suspect one of the 70-200mm crowd will serve you better, as you first thought. I don't think the "gap" between 55mm and 70mm is all that significant on a APS-C camera. Of course, zooms rarely do as well as primes, but modern zooms are astonishingly close.</p>

<p>Whatever you decide on, IS is a worthwhile feature. I wouldn't buy any long lens without it.</p>

[digitmstr]

<p>I borrowed one from a friend a while back and after a few hours I decided it wasn't for me because of the slow aperture.</p>

<p>It's a lens designed for specific situations I guess. Personally, I like to use faster apertures for shallower DOF so, even though the wide zoom range is "convenient" it doesn't do it for me.</p>

<p>It really depends on what type of shoots you do the most.</p>

[ljwest]

<p>I recently borrowed this lens and a 30D from a friend. It seems to be a very good lens, but it is VERY heavy, weighing in at almost 4 pounds! I realize that quality lenses come at a price, but you might want to take that into consideration, especially if you're thinking about this as a "walkaround" lens.</p>

[yakim_peled1]

<p>

<p dir="ltr">I'd stick to your original plan. Either the 70-200/4 IS or the 70-200/2.8 IS II (depending on your preferences) will make a much nicer combination to your 17-55/2.8 IS than the 28-300 IS.</p>

<p dir="ltr">Happy shooting,</p>

<p dir="ltr">Yakim.</p>

 

<p></p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

</p>

[lmwalker]

<p>I bought the 28-300mm f/3.5-5-6 L IS as a walk around lens for a full frame 5D. I had read the many complaints about it being heavy, but I thought 4 pounds, what's the big deal. After toting this rig around Europe for 2 weeks I learned that 4 pounds really is a big deal after about 3 hours. Its a really great lens, and I still use it when I know that I will need to repeatedly go back and forth between wide and long, but only if I know that I won't be shooting and/or carrying it around for more than a couple of hours at a time.</p>

<p>Also, I don't think you will fully realize the benefit of this lens on an APS-C camera. 28 just isn't wide enough wint 1.6 crop. Since you already have the 17-55/2.8 IS, I think Yakim's recommendation for one of the 70-200s makes very good sense.</p>