Canon 28-300L 'super-zoom'

[LonelyBoy]

I would say that most of the experts/enthusiasts on this forum are demanding of a certain level of image quality, and these superzooms just barely meet those requirements. With 10x magnification there's no way these lenses can compare to the shorter-ratio zoom lenses in quality. These are only good for convenience (although the weight and storage space required mostly negate that). I think of them as glorified versions of the 18-200mm.

This is why my personal wish is for a 25-200L, for a "mere" 8x zoom (the exactness of those numbers make my brain happy), or even a 28-200L for just 7x. The latter would be the FF equivalent of the 18-135 STM I love. Heck, make it non-L for all I care. Use the body from the 100-400ii and call it an IS STM (or USM) with weather-sealing but less advanced glass. I'd still be pre-ordering.

 

[Loswr]

I would say that most of the experts/enthusiasts on this forum are demanding of a certain level of image quality, and these superzooms just barely meet those requirements. With 10x magnification there's no way these lenses can compare to the shorter-ratio zoom lenses in quality. These are only good for convenience (although the weight and storage space required mostly negate that). I think of them as glorified versions of the 18-200mm.

This is why my personal wish is for a 25-200L, for a "mere" 8x zoom (the exactness of those numbers make my brain happy), or even a 28-200L for just 7x. The latter would be the FF equivalent of the 18-135 STM I love. Heck, make it non-L for all I care. Use the body from the 100-400ii and call it an IS STM (or USM) with weather-sealing but less advanced glass. I'd still be pre-ordering.

No need to preorder. Since you recommended the 35-350L in another thread, here you go...

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-28-200mm-f-3.5-5.6-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

 

[LonelyBoy]

No need to preorder. Since you recommended the 35-350L in another thread, here you go...

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-28-200mm-f-3.5-5.6-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

This part hurts: "But, image quality delivered by this lens is ... well ... poor.". Ugh. Thanks for the heads up, though - I had no idea this thing existed, and it might be worth having at $167 for certain situations. I was really wanting IS and something on par with the 18-135, which has IQ I'd call well above "poor". My actual plan, failing a decent EF superzoom, was to use a 70-300L for race shots, and the damn smartphone for the WA group shots.

I recommended the 35-350 because the guy wanted longer and didn't mind losing some wide end, which points at 35-350.

 

[JEL]

To be able to rapidly shift from 28 to 300 with out a lens shift has been critical. Yep, the Canon EF 300/2,8 L IS II USM would do a better job at 300mm, but the 28-300 doesn't have to be ashamed about it's performance. 95 out of 100 off my instagram pictures (@johfot) are shot with the 28-300, the others by Canon EF 24-70/2,8 L II USM or the Canon EF 14/2,8L II USM.
Thumbs up for the 28-300, looking forward for it's replacement

Thank you