New Superzoom Development? [CR1]

[Chris Jankowski]

I think that technically, it should be possible to construct 24-200 F4-5.6 with high IQ and weighing less than 1 kg. With USM and IS, of course. It would need to have IQ associated with L lenses, but would not need to be metal. The black plastic like in the recent 16-35 F4 USM IS L will be fine, if it can decrease the weight.

If such lens was brought to market, and had the required IQ, I would be prepared to spend between $1,500 and $2,000 on it.

It would become my bush/mountains travel lens. There is significant value in having only one universal lens in this kind of travel. I am pretty sure that I would use it for a lot of other types of photography too.

Then the next step would be to have a small and light FF body designed along the lines of 100D/SL1 - lets call it SLFF. Such body could weigh about 500g. I use 6D at the moment and it is just to heavy to cart on long treks. With battery etc. it is nearly 900 g. 100D/SL1 weighs 406 g. In the film days I used to have a Minolta SLR that weighed 415 grams.

The end result would be a one piece kit weighing less than 1.5kg that could take amazing quality photos in nearly all situations.

 

[wkosten]

I was surprised to read that the original 28-300 is actually a lens which not many people use.

Been using it for over 6 years now and moving from an 24-105 + 70-200 F4 combi to this lens was great despite the weight, in combination with my 5D2 (with batterypack) I think it weights over 3kg (but hey, in stormy weather the cam stays pretty steady).

Bought it second hand for 800 Euro's (not a bad bargain seen the normal price of about 2400 Euro) and use it almost on a daily basis for maritime photography.

 

[Pixel]

If they can make it as optically good as the 70-200 II, I'm all over it. If not....

 

[mnclayshooter]

Man, If I could get a relatively lighter wide+zoom all in one that still had pretty decent image quality - I'd snap one up.

Not having to pack-in several lenses in remote hiking/camping/biking or climbing adventures would be of real interest to me.

Someone locally was selling a 28-300 on craigslist - I missed the sale, but I saw one pop up at a local store shortly after - my guess is they sold it to the store. I gave it a spin at the store with one of their bodies... seemed like a nice lens - a bit pricey and a bity heavy... but decent. Probably worth an update.

 

[EOSDR]

I don't know about a DO, but, the 28-300 is my most used lens, and it gives me great results all the time. Yes, weight is a issue, and going by past trends, newer versions of the L lenses have for the most part come in lighter than their previous versions.

I, for one, would pre-order in a heartbeat. Here's hoping the rumor has some substance to it.

 

[TAF]

I would be much more interested in a 24-150 f2.8 IS L

That would be the perfect replacement for my 24-105, and would become my primary lens if the optics were up to it.

I'd like f2.8 so it can make full use of all the focus cross points in the 5D3.

I thought about the 28-300, and declined due to the weight...so I ended up with the 24-105 and 70-300. And find I rarely use the 70-300 except when I want to be all the way out at 300. I would be better off with 24-150, and a separate 300 or 400...

 

[TeT]

I would be much more interested in a 24-150 f2.8 IS L

That would be the perfect replacement for my 24-105, and would become my primary lens if the optics were up to it.

I'd like f2.8 so it can make full use of all the focus cross points in the 5D3.

I thought about the 28-300, and declined due to the weight...so I ended up with the 24-105 and 70-300. And find I rarely use the 70-300 except when I want to be all the way out at 300. I would be better off with 24-150, and a separate 300 or 400...

24 150 2.8 IS L would be a large lens...

 

[dreamwood]

I agree with much that has been said here, but personally, if I had the money to spare, I would love to get one of these.

Pros:
• No matter if you're taking a walk, shooting a wedding, concert or wildlife - there are TONS of situations where you can't afford to change lenses (in a dusty desert I'd avoid changing no matter how much time I've got...)
• In situations where there is time, changing back and forth still breaks the flow of certain shooting situations
• For video, zoom range is even more important (esp. sports) - sometimes you need the range in one shot (say 50-100mm)
• In my humble opinion it's simply ridiculous to complain about the weight of 3.67lbs (also, add up the weight of the lenses you usually carry around instead) - unless you have asthma or something comparable
• APS-C with a "shorter" zoom doesn't really replace this (though it might work in many cases), as we all know the benefits of full frame - depth of field and low light capabilities (and in case of the 5Ds: monster resolution)

Cons/missing in the current 28-300:
• f2.8 is my favourite in many situations. I would wish for a 2.8-4.x version - no matter how heavy!
• While I rarely need 300mm (you can extend or even crop if it has to be that kind of close-up), there are situations (like narrow streets) where more "low end" is required. I think 24mm would be a decent starting point on a full frame body...

 

[veryfelina]

Well, I do!!!
Lately I've been looking up superzooms' specs but Canon EF 28-300mm is quite a monster and Tamron 28-300mm has poor IQ (great reviews all things considered but when it comes down to IQ, it always gets 3 out of 5).
I know superzooms aren't (and can't) be as good as zooms, let alone primes (I'm talking about IQ).
But being a mother of 3 often makes me wish for a superzoom, so I can get everything without carrying 2 or 3 lenses and having to keep changing them. This goes for travelling as well.
But I'm not ready to compromise too much IQ.
If Canon managed to put together a 24-300mm L lens with good IQ, wide apertures and a reasonable weight, I would be willing to pay for it. Maybe up to 2000/2500€.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Here are a couple of images from my 35-350 and my 28-300. AF was fast and accurate on both.

35-350

28-300 (100% crop)

 

[GDPhoto]

I own the Canon 28-300 L lens, thought it would make a great back-up lens for shooting weddings .... or maybe if I had to travel with just one lens. Never use it, period. The weight isn't bad considering the focal range you get. But - I've taken less than 100 images with the lens and I'm so unimpressed with the image quality that I consider it a last resort lens.

I agree with a previous post: it's such a dust pump that there is no benefit to keeping it on your camera body vs using several lenses and swapping them.

 

[Zoom-In]

I had 35-350 mm from the beginning - a great lens for paper news and sports
I got Tamron 28-200 mm; 28-300 mm, 18-270 mm, 16-300 mm - they are all not really good ad the long end and not so good for indoors - they only deliver in sunny weather or with tripod-use.
My friend uses the 28-300 mm L IS - it is to heavy and to long.

A 5,6/24-240 mm may be nice - but not really what we need.
I would love to have a 4,0/50-300 mm L IS and a 2,0/35-120 mm L for Portrait-Work.

And maybe the 5,6/35-350 mm L IS should have a comeback in a lighter body.

 

[lol]

I think I'd like to see a similar lens to the 28-300L but not as a direct replacement. The cost is rather hard to swallow and would be even less so with the inevitable increase a new version would come with, so I'd like a still good quality non-L version, comparable to the IS STM lenses available.

Weight of the 28-300L I don't think is a problem for the build of the lens, as it is similar size and only slightly heavier than the 100-400L mk1. I also had the predecessor 35-350L which I bought used, but had to return as it was so old it had mechanical problems. Optically it wasn't leading class but certainly still "good enough". If anything, I'd prefer a bias towards the longer end like the 35-350L, rather than give up the long end if they make it start wider. Extending the zoom range to something like 24-300 would be fine too

 

[Hjalmarg1]

The market for superzoom lenses is mostly travel and I wouldn't see myself carrying this beast for long.
I rather buy the tamron version that only weights 540g. Nikon users can get their 28-300mm that only weights 800g and offers great IQ, obviously for superzoom standards.
They need to make it smaller for consumers, professionals don't get superzoom lenses because they prefer better IQ.

 

[Phil Lowe]

I have the latest iteration of the Tamron 28-300. Aside from pretty bad CA in high contrast back lit scenes, it's a great all-purpose lens. I especially like - and have used - this lens for shooting HD video with my DSLRs (5D3 and 7D). Before getting the previous version of this lens, I was constantly having to swap out my 24-105L and 100-400L for video work. The 28-300 is a great range for video shooters, and the VC (vibration compensation) on the Tamron is great for shoulder-mounted video shooting.

So yes, if Canon can produce a 28-300 lens with better IQ, lower weight, and lower cost in this zoom range than its current lens, they should do so. Lots of people are buying Tamrons (16-300 & 28-300) because Canon's super zoom is just too expensive given its competition.

IMHO.

 

[Moulyneau]

I don't know about a DO, but, the 28-300 is my most used lens, and it gives me great results all the time. Yes, weight is a issue, and going by past trends, newer versions of the L lenses have for the most part come in lighter than their previous versions.

I, for one, would pre-order in a heartbeat. Here's hoping the rumor has some substance to it.

Given what Canon have done with the new 400DO, we could expect the best from a new 24-300 using that tech. This with their new lens design, they could cut like 20% weight from the existing model.

This is also where a serious SL2 comes in play for me (yes, again...). For travel/trekking, that baby together with a bigger body and a fast prime, I'm totally sold! So much so that I'm starting to save right now for the 2500+ bucks it will probably cost - no NY steak for me tonite, only instant noodles...

 

[Loswr]

...no NY steak for me tonite, only instant noodles...

A recent study showed that eating those styrofoam noodle cups twice a week is worse for your health than eating at McDonalds every night.

On the other hand, exercise is good for your health, so you could consider buying a heavy lens as expensive fitness equipment.

 

[Stparrot]

I love this lens for my outdoor wandering and shooting! I have never analyzed it for specific quality issues as I'm sure some have but I have found having one lens attached to my Canon and not having to carry or switch around while on the move is worth every dollar and ounce. I have many lenses and use most of them dependant on specific situations but for general wandering and traveling it can not be beat. Is it expensive - yes! It is heavy - yes! Does it work - double yes! Can it be improved upon - yes ... tell me when the new one is out and I'll snap it up in a heartbeat!

 

[Moulyneau]

...no NY steak for me tonite, only instant noodles...

A recent study showed that eating those styrofoam noodle cups twice a week is worse for your health than eating at McDonalds every night.

On the other hand, exercise is good for your health, so you could consider buying a heavy lens as expensive fitness equipment.

Yes, edible but non-digestible wax! I'll just transfer in a porcelain bowl and eat with wooden chopsticks. Canon therefore, can speed up the design of a lighter 24-300

 

[riker]

I think what's wrong with this lens is that it's just too big for most people

I find that I use a range of 24-200 a lot more than 201-300, and when I do need the longer range, I generally plan for it with 400mm available.

In my view, a compact but high-performing 24-200/4-5.6L IS would be a pretty interesting lens.

Soooo AGREE! That's exactly what I wanted to say. A superzoom lens is for travel or any other situation where you don't want to have many lenses and also weight and size is an issue, so you want to solve as much as you can with 1 lens. And focal lens above 200mm is very rarely needed in these situations.
A lens starting at 20-24mm and ending at 150-200mm is what we need.
My current travel setup is (5Dmk3) 16-35/2.8, 50/1.4, 70-200/4. I will buy anything that makes this setup lighter/smaller/simpler while maintaining about the same performance.
I'm dreaming 16/5.6 pencace, new 50/1.4, 24-200/4.

(Actualy I think the 24-105 should really be a 24-120 even though it would not meet my above needs.)