Would like to get some views of the above mentioned lens as a walk around super zoom for a 7d (but quite likely to upgrade to FF some time in the future). I currently have a 18-200mm but can sometimes need the extra focal length.
Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 L IS USM Lens as walk around lens
- Thread starter magnum
- Start date
- Status
L
Loswr
Guest
IMO, 28mm isn't wide enough for a walkaround lens on an APS-C body. Check your EXIF from the 18-200mm to see how much you use the 18-27mm range.
I use the 28-300L on my 1D X (and on a 5DII before that) as a one-lens solution, and it works very well for that on FF. It's also good for travel, although I will usually supplement it with a fast prime (35L) or two (35L + 135L) for low-light and portrait shots.
I use the 28-300L on my 1D X (and on a 5DII before that) as a one-lens solution, and it works very well for that on FF. It's also good for travel, although I will usually supplement it with a fast prime (35L) or two (35L + 135L) for low-light and portrait shots.
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 7828
Guest
I started a similar thread earlier as I was looking at the 28-300 for the same reason- at certain events I find the 24-105 not long enough for some shots, and when I have the 70-300 sometimes I find myself wanting to go wider. From reading reviews It seems the 28-300 delivers comparable performance to the 24-105 at the respective focal lengths, but once you get past 100mm it can't deliver the IQ of a decent telephoto. (seems like very average or even mediocre performance, especially considering the $2500 price tag & weight).
My take is that this is a lens you use when you want a good quality general walkaround (focal lengths 28-100mm), but would also like telephoto coverage (100-300mm) when necessary, without the hassle of switching lenses. In that case, an average-quality shot is better than a missed shot.
My take is that this is a lens you use when you want a good quality general walkaround (focal lengths 28-100mm), but would also like telephoto coverage (100-300mm) when necessary, without the hassle of switching lenses. In that case, an average-quality shot is better than a missed shot.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
To put it in words rather than pictures (though the latter are more illustrative), in my experience from actually using the 28-300L (as opposed to reading reviews), it delivers the same IQ as the 24-105mm across the whole 11x zoom range. Like the 24-105, it's a bit sharper at the wide end than the long end, but the wide ends and long ends of the two lenses, respectively, are very equivalent.
Are my TS-E 24L II, 35L, and 70-200/2.8L IS II sharper? Yes, but then, they're all sharper than the 24-105, too, and none of them have the extensive zoom range. The drawbacks of the 28-300L as a walkaround lens, compared to the 24-105, are weight, size, and cost...not IQ.
My 2¢, after shooting with the 24-105 for a couple of years and the 28-300 for several months, on three different bodies.
Are my TS-E 24L II, 35L, and 70-200/2.8L IS II sharper? Yes, but then, they're all sharper than the 24-105, too, and none of them have the extensive zoom range. The drawbacks of the 28-300L as a walkaround lens, compared to the 24-105, are weight, size, and cost...not IQ.
My 2¢, after shooting with the 24-105 for a couple of years and the 28-300 for several months, on three different bodies.
Upvote
0
mdm041 said:
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.
Upvote
0
- Status
