New Superzoom Development? [CR1]

[ADBa]

With price, size and quality of the Nikon 28-300
(http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=734&Camera=614&Sample=0&FLI=6&API=1&LensComp=358&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0)
this would be worth a consideration for a walkaround lens. Perhaps i woud shoot it at M-RAW...
I do not own a Nikon Camera.

 

[Random Orbits]

The 70-300L is a great travel lens. It won't win in IQ alone against the 70-200s and the 100-400 II, but it's close enough most of the time and weighs less and is more compact. Pair it with a 24 f/2.8 IS or a 35 f/2 IS or 40 f/2.8 and you've got most of FL needs covered with a light combo. If you need a zoom at the shorter end, then a 24-70 can replace the prime, and that is what what the 28-300 replacement should be competing against. If it weighs as little as the 70-300L, and extends to the 24/28mm and has similar IQ to the 70-300L and the 24-70 f/4 IS, then it's popularity will only depend on it's price. Price it around 2000-2400 (combined street prices of the 24-70 f/4 IS and 70-300L) and it should do OK.

Canon should also develop a 24-300 non L version. DSLR prices are falling as demand falls. The 24-70 non L is a good move, and a 24-300 non L would help round out the non-L zoom options.

 

[Rob Wiebe]

I have the Canon 28-300 and it is a heavy lens but my favourite 'event' lens on my 1DX. It is heavy but delivers awesome IQ for out door natural light events. A lighter update would be nice!

 

[Loswr]

I had the 28-300L for a while, it's a very useful lens with optical performance across the range on par with the 24-105L, which is a very good lens. The size and weight weren't bothersome, the same as a 70-200/2.8 or 100-400. I sold it only after having the 24-70/2.8L II and 70-300L, which deliver better optical performance.

I'd be interested in a 24-300L if they could deliver 70-300L optical quality in a package not heavier than the current lens, the lighter the better.

There's no free lunch. There are lots of superzoom options (particularly for APS-C, but some for FF), that are relatively small, light and inexpensive – and trade off optical quality to achieve that. If you want a superzoom that delivers very good IQ with trade offs of size/weight/cost, Canon is the only game in town and I hope they improve upon that.

With price, size and quality of the Nikon 28-300
(http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=734&Camera=614&Sample=0&FLI=6&API=1&LensComp=358&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0)
this would be worth a consideration for a walkaround lens.

Any particular reason you're showing a comparison to the 70-300 non-L, which is particularly mushy at the long end? Try comparing to 300mm on the 70-300L or 28-300L.

 

[Hector1970]

Ideally I'd like a 14-500mm Zoom. That would be very useful if it was light.
I could take photographs of unicorns with it.

A 24-300mm would be a great range if it were possible.
I'd accept a reasonable amount of weight for it's flexibility

 

[zim]

I always understood that this lens was intended for photojournalists trying to cover quickly changing scenes without having to change lenses.

Given the quality of APS-C these days, I wonder if a 15-240 APS-C lens paired with a 7DII wouldn't be a more practical and lighter solution.

+1 and a lot more affordable!

 

[Bob Howland]

I have the Canon 28-200 and the latest generation Tamron 28-300, which is what I actually use now. Both are OK single lens solutions with a 5D3, either as vacation lenses or when things are happening so fast that changing lenses and/or camera bodies is simply impractical.

What I really want is a 24-200 f/2.8-4.5 L IS that weighs only slightly more than the Tamron.

 

[TeT]

a 24 200 L would rock.... For the 28 300 to go to 24 300 would require significant retooling in regards to weight.

It is a useful lens, as useful as the 70 300 L on the other end. The weight and cost is the killer though.

I have seen several users that I recognize as newspaper or magazine photographers shooting with it in the Houston area.

Never seen a mom or pop with one...

 

[ADBa]

Quote from: ADBa on Today at 11:04:00 AM

With price, size and quality of the Nikon 28-300
(http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=734&Camera=614&Sample=0&FLI=6&API=1&LensComp=358&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0)
this would be worth a consideration for a walkaround lens.


Any particular reason you're showing a comparison to the 70-300 non-L, which is particularly mushy at the long end? Try comparing to 300mm on the 70-300L or 28-300L.

Agree with your wish for a high quality 24-tele lens. On paper, the 28-300 seems not bad at the tele end. Weight was the only reason for choosing the worst and a little bit stupid option for „my“ 300mm comparison (630 g (of the 70-300 non-L) would leave room for a light full frame wideangle, to have less than 1000 g lens weight). Currently i wear a 24-70 on my camera and miss some tele shots, because the 70-200 stays in the camera bag.

(Sorry, how can i remove the SX60 below my logo?)

 

[Loswr]

... only reason for choosing the worst and a little bit stupid option for „my“ 300mm comparison (630 g (of the 70-300 non-L) would leave room for a light full frame wideangle, to have less than 1000 g lens weight).

(Sorry, how can i remove the SX60 below my logo?)

Makes sense. I have the 70-300L for travel, the 70-200/2.8 II for local use.

(Post more - the camera model under your name is linked to post count.)

 

[rsolis]

This is something I have been hoping for. I have the Canon 28-300 f3.5-6.6 lens. I use it almost daily. Yeah it is a little heavy and requires some balancing, but in daylight or in a brightly lit room with today's newer cameras it "rocks." I am a wire service shooter and I purchased this lens shortly after Hurricane Katrina. I have used it at every tornado or hurricane I have covered since. This lens, a second body with the 16-35 and one flash and you are as mobile in the field as can be. You don't need to carry utility belts (Think Tank or Lowe-Pro) in the field if you are on deadline. You shoot fast, get back to your vehicle, check and see if you receive a signal to transmit and go to town. I would love a lighter lens or for that matter a faster lens.

I use the lens when I cover the state legislature and if necessary, I use the canon flash with it. And I have used it when covering SEC football (in daylight of course). I have used it in bad weather (it is sealed) as well.

It took a little time to adjust to the push pull of the zoom, but it is not a problem now.

I will purchase a new one after reading how it does on its clinicals against the older model it will replace, when and if they do offer the lens. Till then, I will keep my "girl" in working order and in the field.

Rogelio

 

[preppyak]

Or 24-240/f4 + 2x for 48-480/f8.

Nothing over $2000.

Unfortunately, I dont think these two things are possible together. I'd love it if it were. But I have to imagine 240 f/4 makes the lens heavy and expensive enough to be prohibitive on a zoom.

I would like to see the wider end be faster, 24mm f/2.8 stretching to 200-250mm f/5.6 would be something I'd consider for full-frame. Would basically cover all my needs in one lens, with a 14mm lens tacked on for night/landscape work.

 

[AlleyB]

Canon...gimme a 24-250, constant f/4, please...in the $2K price range is fine.

 

[PCM-madison]

I often find that the 35-350mm L + 6D combo works well on hikes when I will encounter a variety of subjects and don't want to change or carry multiple lenses. I don't own and have not used the 28-300mm L, but I understand it weighs about 300g more than the 35-350mm. An example of the 35-350mm + 6D @ 350mm, iso 800, f/8, 1/2000 (Great Horned Owl Chicks from earlier this Spring).

 

[Deleted member 7828]

I had one of these. It's a lens I've dreamed about for a while and when I finally got the chance to use it, it was nice to have everything in one focal length. It allowed me to get shots that likely wouldn't have been possible with a combo set (due to time lost in switching cameras). However, the hit on IQ proved to be too great - since I don't shoot professionally, a missed shot here or there isn't the end of the world, and ultimately I preferred the superior image quality of the 70-200, 70-300 and even 24-105 in some cases. Bigger than that, though, was the weight and the conspicuousness. It REALLY attracted attention which made it more difficult at times to get certain shots. And although I was able to manage it for several hours, the "performance/weight ratio" was a bit disproportionate I felt.

I'll stick to the two-camera or two-day strategy for local events. For travel, a smaller, lighter, non-L version will be welcomed though.

 

[Tuke]

Aperture f/2.8 is probably too much to ask.

Angenieux 25-250mm T3.5 $55,000
Angenieux 24-290mm T2.8 $88,000
Canon 30-300mm T2.95-3.7 $40,000
Fujinon 25-300mm T3.5 $44,000

How about constant f/4.0 with 77mm front diameter. Something to compete against Sony FE PZ 28-135mm f/4 G OSS?

Sony FE PZ 28-135mm f/4 $2,500
Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 $299

 

[e17paul]

With the success of 70-300L, I see no need for 28-300L. It makes more sense one F3.5-5.6L 24-200mm more compact, lightweight and not so expensive.

This 28-300 formula would make more sense as a cheap versatile plastic bodied lens. Perhaps as full frame continues its spread down market, this could become the FF equivalent of the EF-S 18-200.

I agree that 24-200 would be a more attractive single lens solution, I might even be tempted. I suspect that better IQ could be achieved with 24-200 than 28-300

 

[Moulyneau]

24-300, lighter? Terrific! Hope it happens and that it doesn't take 3 years...

 

[Gino]

I would definitely be a buyer of an updated L-superzoom lens, and I sure hope the lens makes it to production in the near future, as long as Canon can keep the weight to under 1,000g, and in a smaller size compared to the current 28-300L i.e. the size and weight of the 70-300L would be the max I'd be willing to deal with.

I have the Nikon 28-300mm superzoom, and I really like the lens for travel and family photos. The Nikon lens only weighs 800g, and it is very small compared to the Canon 28-300L.

Thanks

 

[awinphoto]

Very Early on in my photography career, i had access to one of the earlier versions of this lens... Of course i had my 10D at that point and that was brand spanking new, with like a max ISO of like 800, 1600 was unusable. At the time, i loved that lens... a one size fits all L lens... But looking back at the archived photos i have with that lens, very few are actually tack sharp.
...

Was the focus ever calibrated?

Dilbert, we're talking about 2001-2002 where the 10D didn't have AFMA... The lens wasn't mine, but i had access to it whenever i wanted it. Very well could be the 10D AF just wasn't fast enough for the subjects I was using it for... Very well could be after being spoiled the last few years with the likes of the 70-200, 85mm, 100mm and other L lenses that what i accepted as good back then was inferior to what i accept now, 13-14 years later... So long story short, no.