28-300 L...

[niccyboy]

I am sick of carrying two bodies on photojournalism gigs.... is it worth the 3k?

Currently i have 24-70 and 70-200 2.8 is2 on two FF bodies... so obviously I'm losing a 1.5-2 stops of light, but it's always during the day and the 5d2 ISO can comfortably sit at 640 for my needs.

The reviews online are quite favourable but i'd love some forum members' opinions.

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I had the predesessor, the 35-350L that I bought used last summer.  It was a excellent lens, a push pull, so it felt similar to my 100-400mm L.

The main thing I did not like was the longish minimum focus distance.  I sold it and kept using my existing lenses.  That big lens is a attention grabber, and gets noticed.


Here are a couple of snapshots taken near minimum focus distance with my 1D MK III ... just to show the extremes of the zoom.

35mm




350mm

[niccyboy]

Yeah I noticed the focus distance, It's even further away in the 28-300.... it's 70cm.

The IS in the replacement is a big plus though. I think I may have to splurge. Thanks!

[wickidwombat]

Hi there I had one which i recently sold It was an awesome lens, however I found I was using it mostly at 300 and using other lenses ie 16-35 for wide and other mid range lenses more and more I also managed to pick up a 300 f4L IS cheap so i decided to part with the 28-300.

It is an awesome build quality, built like a tank and you get used to the push push which once you do makes changing focal length very fast, I used to get a feel for where the shorter length i would sit at was and if i was shooting at 300 and need to to pull back have one of my middle fingers resting against the barrel then when pulling back it would hit my finger and i was about where i wanted to be. It also takes some practice to used the locking ring one handed but again works well once you get the hang of it.

It bright light I found my lens extremely sharp shooting on a 1dMk3 so the 1.3 crop helped wipe any corner softness out i guess so i never had any issue with sharpness at any apperture. I also got a kenko 1.4 TC the DXG one reports aperture correctly and works a treat with the 28-300 although you really do need good light and a 1 series body

I found the autofocus on mine very fast and accurate too so all round it was a great do everything in 1 lens just that my shooting changed more to using seperate lenses. but if you need 1 lens that will do everything then I think its the only really choice if you want to keep high image quality.

hope that helps

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Yeah I noticed the focus distance, It's even further away in the 28-300.... it's 70cm.

The IS in the replacement is a big plus though. I think I may have to splurge. Thanks!

I think you mean 700CM (0.7M).

[niccyboy]

Yeah I noticed the focus distance, It's even further away in the 28-300.... it's 70cm.

The IS in the replacement is a big plus though. I think I may have to splurge. Thanks!

I think you mean 700CM (0.7M).

700cm is 7.0m

[snowmelon]

I love this lens, not as wide or as long or as fast as others maybe, but I often cannot bring more than one body or change lenses in the field and this one does it all.  As others have said built solidly, I love the push-pull, once you are used to it you can manipulate it quickly, the IS is a big help.  It is variable aperture.  And it's really not that big once you are used to it.  Cannot use canon teleconverters.

[Flake]

It's very good!  Just bear in mind that it weighs a ton, and can be very tiring to lump around all day, my advice is to use it with a monopod  for a little relief. Also it's very very high profile, you won't go unnoticed with this lens!

Image quality has always been easily good enough to pass commercial quality standards (and why does anyone need better?).  For any time when you can only take one lens this is the one.  Buy a set of close up filters to turn it into a true one lens does it all!  It will focus quite close, the filters are just the icing on the cake.

[dr croubie]

Yeah I noticed the focus distance, It's even further away in the 28-300.... it's 70cm.

The IS in the replacement is a big plus though. I think I may have to splurge. Thanks!

I think you mean 700CM (0.7M).

700cm is 7.0m

yeah, 28-300L is 700mm/70cm/0.7m MFD.
in American-speak, that's 30 cubic ounces or so.

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Yeah I noticed the focus distance, It's even further away in the 28-300.... it's 70cm.

The IS in the replacement is a big plus though. I think I may have to splurge. Thanks!

I think you mean 700CM (0.7M).

700cm is 7.0m

You are right, I get mm and cm mixed up.

[niccyboy]

All good mate!

Thanks for your help... those pictures sold the range.

I'm just trying to find one now.

[Edwin Herdman]

in American-speak, that's 30 cubic ounces or so.

I had a good chuckle at this

Good thing we don't have to deal with pre- or post-war lenses (Japanese for example) which may be 7 cm one year and 70mm the next (and possibly they went the other direction as well with some lenses, i.e. 50mm for a Topcon wartime lens to 5cm after, though that doesn't jive with my reading elsewhere).

I find the metric system a godsend for photography.  Even feet aren't too useful for me in judging distances as the larger meter is often more useful to me (and at less than a meter, mm take over).  Seven feet or two meters isn't too big a difference in actual length, but you can split two meters evenly.  On the other hand, miles and gallons seem more natural to me (though, once again, don't ask me to divide them and provide accurate subunits - might get ugly).

[TowcesterNews]

I do quite a lot of photojournalism style work. Sports of all kinds, events etc and I use a 28-300 IS L, it is excellent, the push pull you get used to, the weight is no problem, sometimes indoors could do with more speed, but on a 7d I just turn up the ISO and shoot RAW.

All the sports and action in this Flickr stream were shot with one.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/towcesternews/sets/