New Superzoom Development? [CR1]

[degos]

And focal lens above 200mm is very rarely needed in these situations.

So many travel superzooms go well towards 300mm that I'm sure their research showed that 200mm is too short for an upper limit.

For example, 200mm is useless for an interesting bird that lands 20 ft away. Or for features on top of a building, from street level.

It's also far too short for casual use at an airshow, or for cars on a racing track; both events that tourists might visit. 300mm is the bare minimum for those and even then is lacking.

 

[Lee Jay]

So many travel superzooms go well towards 300mm that I'm sure their research showed that 200mm is too short for an upper limit.

The 18-135 is effectively 29-216.

For example, 200mm is useless for an interesting bird that lands 20 ft away.

No it's not. This was taken with a 200mm lens on a full-frame camera, at 165mm, from well over 20 feet away. This was at a bird show under cover on a dark, dreary day and I needed f/2.8 so I left the TCs off the 70-200.

Or for features on top of a building, from street level.

It's also far too short for casual use at an airshow, or for cars on a racing track; both events that tourists might visit. 300mm is the bare minimum for those and even then is lacking.

This shot was taken at 200mm on a 20D which has the same pixel density as a 5D II and thus could also have been taken on that camera with cropping in post, instead of by the sensor.

 

[skyoctane]

I owe one of these beasts. It was always my dream lens when I was shooting film purely because of the convenience of the zoom range. I bought a really nice one on ebay for $1500 a few years ago. Yep, this lens is old, it's heavy, cumbersome, the push-pull isn't smooth (when there's a hint of zoom-creep tension), it's costly but IMOO it's awesome! The zoom range is surprisingly sharp for a super-zoom of it's vintage, the min. focus distance of 70cm is a treat and the bokeh, of all things, it's lovely.
I love it for shooting speedway motorsports because you can quickly go from very wide to a detailed crop in one pull. no need to fumble two bodies. I love zoom burst effects and this lens lends itself to those shots like no other.
As a travel lens, it's heavy and intimidating so I would definitely welcome a lighter upgrade.
Perhaps I got lucky with a sharp copy but I do think this lens is under-rated.

 

[AllGold]

I would be happy if Canon just brought back the 35-350L (although I probably wouldn't be happy with the price tag ). The 35-350 is sharper at 350mm than the 28-300 is at 300mm. I also think 35-350 is a more useful focal length. Then again I'm not looking at this from the standpoint of a lightweight travel lens.

Of course, everyone has their own preferences. For me, a 50-350 would be fine, too. The 100-400II is a terrific lens, but I'd want something a little wider on the short end, although it doesn't need to actually be a wide angle like a 28mm. 50mm is good for me. For a lens with a 100mm minimum, I'd prefer it if the new 100-400 was actually 100-500.

Like I said, everyone has their own preferences; those are mine.

 

[SloPhoto]

Great Raptor shot!!

Re: the lens question, after starting to work with the new 100-400 II, I am really interested in seeing what Canon can bring to the field with this rumor. If it had the IQ, IS and build quality of the 100-400 II, I think it could be a great lens, even without the premier wide aperture that everyone drools over.

A 2.8 over the whole range seems highly implausible - but a variable wouldn't be a deal killer in my opinion.

So many travel superzooms go well towards 300mm that I'm sure their research showed that 200mm is too short for an upper limit.

The 18-135 is effectively 29-216.

For example, 200mm is useless for an interesting bird that lands 20 ft away.

No it's not. This was taken with a 200mm lens on a full-frame camera, at 165mm, from well over 20 feet away. This was at a bird show under cover on a dark, dreary day and I needed f/2.8 so I left the TCs off the 70-200.

Or for features on top of a building, from street level.

It's also far too short for casual use at an airshow, or for cars on a racing track; both events that tourists might visit. 300mm is the bare minimum for those and even then is lacking.

This shot was taken at 200mm on a 20D which has the same pixel density as a 5D II and thus could also have been taken on that camera with cropping in post, instead of by the sensor.

 

[overclock]

I love my 28-300. I got it on a great sale from the Canon refurb website. The range is super awesome to have in one lens. The IQ on mine is good. I need to do the AMFA fine tuning still but that's true of all my lenses.

I've seen the 28-300 being used in person only once. I asked the photog how she liked it and she said she loved it. After a couple of years I finally got one of my own. The only time it's been off my camera since is to switch to the 16-35 at the Grand Canyon.

 

[dsut4392]

<p>Is an “L/DO” superzoom something photographers want? What would it take feature wise for you to purchase one of these. Is there a cost ceiling? <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=26293.0" target="_blank">Sound off in our forum</a>.</p>
<p>Happy Friday.</p>

Yes, I would like an L superzoom, but it would have to be half the size and weight of the current monster. For a lens with outstanding IQ I would pay up to $2k. Regardless of the IQ and price, if the weight is more than about 900g (which is more than 1.5x the weight of the Tamron), count me out.

I want it for travel and hiking, to pair with the 16-35/4. The 24-240 some have suggested doesn't interest me - not wide enough to go without the 16-35, and not enough reach. I've tossed up getting the 70-300L instead of a super-zoom, and carrying 16-35/4, Sigma 50/1.4 EX, 70-300L. But the weight penalty keeps pulling me back to the Tamron 28-300 at least for the short term (for a 7 week holiday in Scandinavia) and re-evaluating later if Canon (or anyone else) releases a better quality equivalent.

 

[LonelyBoy]

And focal lens above 200mm is very rarely needed in these situations.

So many travel superzooms go well towards 300mm that I'm sure their research showed that 200mm is too short for an upper limit.

For example, 200mm is useless for an interesting bird that lands 20 ft away. Or for features on top of a building, from street level.

It's also far too short for casual use at an airshow, or for cars on a racing track; both events that tourists might visit. 300mm is the bare minimum for those and even then is lacking.

But see, I'd love a 24- (or 25-)200 to cover the same range as my 18-135 IS STM, only on FF (hopefully with, yes, a little extra on the wide end). For an airshow, or an auto race, bring a whole different lens. There is, I believe, room for a lens that can cover a bigger range than 24-105 without needing to go all the way to 300 (with all the cost, size, and weight that goes along with that). If you need to cover truly that full range, you can pair it with a 70-300 or 100-400. That's still cheaper and smaller than the "quality" set of 24-70ii, 70-200ii, and something longer.

 

[riker]

And focal lens above 200mm is very rarely needed in these situations.

So many travel superzooms go well towards 300mm that I'm sure their research showed that 200mm is too short for an upper limit.

For example, 200mm is useless for an interesting bird that lands 20 ft away. Or for features on top of a building, from street level.

It's also far too short for casual use at an airshow, or for cars on a racing track; both events that tourists might visit. 300mm is the bare minimum for those and even then is lacking.

I'm not talking about the "needs" of tourists, shooting shitty images of some bird landing far away, shooting cars from where they sit, etc. For them, there are the compact superzooms, EF-S lenses or whatever. They are not the market for EF/L lenses even if they sometimes happen to buy them.
Also, an airshow, a bird, etc are still just some particular situations - sometimes it might be nice to have something above 200mm, but these are still the minority of the situations. And you can also easily crop and still have nice resolution when you have 20+ MP.

So I'm pretty confident when I'm saying I very rarely need a lens above 200mm for travel photography which I do for many years now. I also tend to think this is not just my opinion but most professionals agree. (By the way it's not a random coincidence that compacts like the S series and G series which are meant for prosumers/professionals do not have long zooms.)

 

[dsut4392]

And focal lens above 200mm is very rarely needed in these situations.

So many travel superzooms go well towards 300mm that I'm sure their research showed that 200mm is too short for an upper limit.

For example, 200mm is useless for an interesting bird that lands 20 ft away. Or for features on top of a building, from street level.

It's also far too short for casual use at an airshow, or for cars on a racing track; both events that tourists might visit. 300mm is the bare minimum for those and even then is lacking.

I'm not talking about the "needs" of tourists, shooting S___ty images of some bird landing far away, shooting cars from where they sit, etc. For them, there are the compact superzooms, EF-S lenses or whatever. They are not the market for EF/L lenses even if they sometimes happen to buy them.
Also, an airshow, a bird, etc are still just some particular situations - sometimes it might be nice to have something above 200mm, but these are still the minority of the situations. And you can also easily crop and still have nice resolution when you have 20+ MP.

So I'm pretty confident when I'm saying I very rarely need a lens above 200mm for travel photography which I do for many years now. I also tend to think this is not just my opinion but most professionals agree. (By the way it's not a random coincidence that compacts like the S series and G series which are meant for prosumers/professionals do not have long zooms.)

Not a flame against you riker, but I don't understand the attitude that 'anyone that isn't a pro doesn't care about image quality', and 'anyone that is a pro doesn't care how big or heavy a lens is'.

As for "they are not the market for EF/L lenses even if they happen to buy them", take a look around your local tourist hotspot and count the number of 5D/6D bodies with attached 24-70/4 or 24-105/4 around 'prosumer' necks vs the number of pros and think that one through again.

Prosumers/pros don't use superzooms, let alone compacts with long zooms, because most of them make lousy images. That's a self-fulfilling prophecy, not a decision by the market that it doesn't want a good superzoom.

While improvements on a compact are certainly limited by the small f-stops of a zoom in that form factor, there is potential for improvement (IMO) in the area of superzooms for full-frame, and I believe they could sell. Is it so wrong to want a superzoom with good optical performance, that doesn't weigh 1.67kg?

 

[dsut4392]

Canon and Nikon have been selling "kits" with a standard zoom (from 20-something to around 80) and telephoto zoom (around 70 to 300) for longer than digital cameras have been around.

...

Be aware that the IQ in more recent superzooms is improving to the point of the image being sensor quality limited, not lens limited.

I got my first SLR (at age 10) when the standard options were a 50/1.8 or 50/1.4, and cut my teeth shooting KR64. I remember when [self styled] pros on usenet forums would scoff at any 'pro' ever shooting anything but a prime... And for my money, digital didn't cut it on a price/ IQ performance ratio until the 350D, and I still shot Provia for many things until 2007 when processing options started drying up locally.

So yeah, I agree things have changed a lot in the camera world. I wouldn't go quite so far as saying superzooms are approaching being sensor-limited (especially in the corners at the long and short ends), but I do agree that the (unfortunately very limited) evidence suggests they are becoming a 'good enough' compromise. A proper review in a controlled setup (e.g. DXOmark, or lensrentals) or even a direct comparison between the Tamron 'plastic fantastic' and the 28-300L would be interesting to see...

 

[RGF]

Surely the whole idea of a superzoom is to be a hand-holdable, portable lens, that can be more or less permanently attached, replacing a bagful of primes, and with a reasonable price?

I can't think of any type of photographer who would want this lens. Much much better to get 2 or 3 wide aperture primes, plus a long zoom for sports/action.

You are on Safari and some lions are walking toward the vehicle interacting. No time to change lens, just keep on shooting.

I had the 28-300 and had a love/hate battle with it. IQ was okay but not great.

On the long end, it was F5.6 and the 100-400 gave me extra reach and could safely couple with 1.4. Plus it weighted the same as the 100-400/70-200F2.8. One gave me extra reach, the other extra speed. the 28-300 gave me extra width.

I would like to see the replacement with longer end. I could give a bit on the wide end if necessary.

 

[Don Haines]

Speaking as a hiker...... One super zoom lens beats carrying three separate zoom lenses..... Or 8 primes.....

When that bear runs across the trail or the eagle flies overhead, zooming the super zoom is far faster than swapping lenses......

When you really want the best IQ possible, nothing beats a prime.....

Which path you go down depends on your needs..... And different people will have different requirements, so instead of arguing, rejoice in having more choice... even if you don't want that particular lens. After all, who among us has EVERY lens that Canon sells?

 

[mnclayshooter]

Speaking as a hiker...... One super zoom lens beats carrying three separate zoom lenses..... Or 8 primes.....

When that bear runs across the trail or the eagle flies overhead, zooming the super zoom is far faster than swapping lenses......

When you really want the best IQ possible, nothing beats a prime.....

Which path you go down depends on your needs..... And different people will have different requirements, so instead of arguing, rejoice in having more choice... even if you don't want that particular lens. After all, who among us has EVERY lens that Canon sells?

+1 carrying one lens to cover a wide-gamut of situations is a huge benefit to me... climbing a waterfall, hiking a mountain ridge or great lake shoreline trail, biking a prairieland highway... if I could get great (but note, not absolute best) IQ and wide-tele range out of one lens, I'd take it over a bag full of boat anchors with razor-sharpness any day for most of my photographic needs. If I could afford to own both, no doubt I would! Function vs funding seems to be a compelling reason for me to have interest in this lens.

 

[johfot]

An unknown source has told us that Canon is actively working to develop a superzoom to replace the EF 28-300 f/3.5-5.6L IS. This is a lens that is rarely spoken about and I can’t remember a time when I’ve actually seen one in use. It’s big and weighs a lot (3.67lbs) and <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/319784-USA/Canon_9322A002AA_28_300mm_f_3_5_5_6L_IS_USM.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">costs around $2500</a>.</p>
<p>We were told that the goal of any such lens would be a significant weight reduction and to make the lens wider, possibly to 24mm. Is it possible that diffractive optics could cure the weight issue? Weight could be definitely be reduced, but I’d have a hard time believing cost would be.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t normally post this sort of thing without digging a little further, but it might be a lens worth talking about. As some of you may know, I own a rental company and we do not stock the EF 28-300 f/3.5-5.6L IS, as I think we’ve have 1 or 2 requests for it in 4 years.</p>
<p>Is an “L/DO” superzoom something photographers want? What would it take feature wise for you to purchase one of these. Is there a cost ceiling? <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=26293.0" target="_blank">Sound off in our forum</a>.</p>
<p>Happy Friday.</p>

I've been a happy owner of the 28-300 for about 5 years now. The lens is heavy, no doubt about that. Most of my pictures are shot during filed trips (weekends) with my office. With just 1 minute to frame the picture and to find interesting angles. 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

 

[LonelyBoy]

I had the 28-300 and had a love/hate battle with it. IQ was okay but not great.

On the long end, it was F5.6 and the 100-400 gave me extra reach and could safely couple with 1.4. Plus it weighted the same as the 100-400/70-200F2.8. One gave me extra reach, the other extra speed. the 28-300 gave me extra width.

I would like to see the replacement with longer end. I could give a bit on the wide end if necessary.

Why not look at the 35-350L then?

 

[mrzero]

I ran across this review of the new Sony FE 24-240 and I was very jealous. Stabilized, full-frame superzoom for $1,000 at release, only a little bit larger than Canon's 24-105 f/4L. http://sonyalphalab.com/product-review/sony-fe-24-240mm-oss-lens-review-all-in-one-full-frame-coverage/

Look at its specs side by side with Canon's lenses. I'd say Canon should be able to come up with something in the same spirit. http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/side-by-side?products=sony_fe_24-240_3p5-6p3_oss&products=canon_24-105_4&products=canon_28-200_3p5-5p6_usm&products=canon_28-300_3p5-5p6_is&sortDir=ascending

 

[LonelyBoy]

I ran across this review of the new Sony FE 24-240 and I was very jealous. Stabilized, full-frame superzoom for $1,000 at release, only a little bit larger than Canon's 24-105 f/4L. http://sonyalphalab.com/product-review/sony-fe-24-240mm-oss-lens-review-all-in-one-full-frame-coverage/

Look at its specs side by side with Canon's lenses. I'd say Canon should be able to come up with something in the same spirit. http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/side-by-side?products=sony_fe_24-240_3p5-6p3_oss&products=canon_24-105_4&products=canon_28-200_3p5-5p6_usm&products=canon_28-300_3p5-5p6_is&sortDir=ascending

I agree, jealous. Canon would insist on a 5.6 maximum aperture, and I have no idea how "piezo-electric" AF compares to ring-USM, but I do wish Canon would update the 28-200 with IS and ring-USM (and better optics), or upgrade the 28-300L the same way they did the similar-body 100-400L. I'd be on that like my cat on a seafood platter.

 

[RGF]

I had the 28-300 and had a love/hate battle with it. IQ was okay but not great.

On the long end, it was F5.6 and the 100-400 gave me extra reach and could safely couple with 1.4. Plus it weighted the same as the 100-400/70-200F2.8. One gave me extra reach, the other extra speed. the 28-300 gave me extra width.

I would like to see the replacement with longer end. I could give a bit on the wide end if necessary.

No IS which I consider very helpful, especially when I hand hold.

Not sure which is sharper, as far as I am concerned, never is great, both okay
Why not look at the 35-350L then?

 

[StudentOfLight]

I used a friend's Nikon APS-C body recently and the variable aperture kit lens annoyed the crap out of me. I don't like using auto/semi-auto metering modes so definitely would only be interested in fixed maximum aperture lenses.

While most of my lenses are f/2.8 or faster, I'd be willing to trade in trade in one stop of ISO performance for the convenience of a zoom and if it's a static subject then there's always the latest generation of kickass IS to make up for the loss of light-gathering capability.

In terms of focal range, if I can live with the angle of view of the 24mm pancake on APS-C then I can easily live with 28mm on the wide end and I love 70-200mm for portraits and reasonably close-by subjects. Anything further away either gets treated as a snapshot (only for ID purposes) or needs a dedicated lens for it to be a keeper.

So summarizing, I'd say 28-200mm f/4 IS USM would be great walk-around lens from my perspective. I'd much rather have a brilliant 200/4 than a mediocre 300mm f/5.6.