« on: August 20, 2012, 09:27:03 PM »
I've also been looking at the 28-300 as a walk around lens for travel but if I buy it then I can't afford to go anywhere. So I've been looking at the Tamron 28-300 as a much cheaper alternative.
I wouldn't bother with the Tamron unless you're OK with soft shots and very slow AF performance at the long end. I own the Canon 28-300L but tried the Tamron 28-300MM F/3.5-6.3 XR Di VC LD (that's a mouthful) when it came out as an alternative lens when I wasn't in the mood for the weight of the Canon. I shot with it a couple of times before deciding it wasn't for me. The VC did work fairly well and of course it is much cheaper and lighter but a lot of the images were soft compared to the Canon and the AF was very slow at the long end of the zoom.
Now for the Canon 28-300L, I use mine a lot for travel photography. Maybe mine is a better than normal copy but for travel it can't be beat for a full frame camera. It barely cuts it on the wide end on the 1.3x crop 1DM4 and so I ususally carried a 24 and 17 along with it for some shots if I was using it with that camera. I use the past tense because I sold the 1DM4 to help finance a 1D X so I'm now full frame all the way. I personally wouldn't consider it for a 1.6x crop camera because of the lack of wide angle. A big plus for the lens is that it focuses down to 2.3' through the entire zoom range; not quite a macro but close enough for great flower and detail shots. For an older lens design, the IS works very well and the lens focuses quickly. One thing I'll point out about the lens is that it is a big heavy lens. Even when pulled back to 28mm is looks like you are shooting with a telephoto zoom. When traveling with it, I've gotten quite a few "evil eyes" from people thinking I was zoomed in on them when I was taking wide-angle "street" shots. As a lot of people usually suggest, if you have somewhere to rent one, I'd do that first to see if it is for you.