Travelling zoom

[Michael]

Hi,
I like to travel a lot and loves a large zoom. My recent lens, EFs18-200, which is used with a 7D, has broken and has to be replaced and I'm looking for a high quality lens in the wide-tele segment. When looking at the L lenses the only one that seems to fit my needs when travelling is the L 28-300. However, it really has a 'come and get me, I have a nice lens' approach, when travelling, it is very heavy, expensive and it was launched back in 2004. So Im struggeling wheather to buy this 28-300 lens or buy the EFs 18-200 once again although I don't appreciate its quality very much. I would really appreciate tips about alternatives from you guys out there and opinions about what could be expected at the Photokina coming up in september. Does anyone think there will be 'mark II' of the 28-300 L lens or variations thereof?

Kindly
Michael

 

[Random Orbits]

There are very few choices when you're looking for a superzoom and none of them deliver great IQ. If you are willing to consider covering the range with 2 lenses, then there are a lot more options around the budget of the 28-300. You could consider the ef-s 15-85 or 17-55 and couple that with the 70-200 f/4 IS or 70-300L depending on whether or not you want shallower DOF or more focal length range.

 

[robbymack]

if you are happy with the IQ of the 18-200 you won't find anything in that price range that is similar. But if you want to spend a little more, then the 17-55 and either the 70-200 f4 (is or non is) or the 70-300 would do you well. Id say rent all three including the 28-300. I have a feeling the second after you lift the 28-300 you will wish you saved the money renting it.

 

[Michael]

Thanks for replying!
Actually I become very interested in the new 70-200 USM II and thought that will be great. However when I for a couple of days noticed how much I really used the range 18-70 I was surprised, so I guess you're right it has to be a budget superzoom or two L lenses.

 

[Michael]

Thanks robbymack,

That is a good idea renting them! didnt think about that. Unfortunately I not very happy with the 18-200 as I alway postprocess pictures both as for sharpening and contrast, so you're right I has to be an L lens this time. Seems a bit odd there are so few superzooms, after all both the 28-300 and 35-350 is out there, but quiet old, so there obviously is a market.

Michael

 

[Deleted member 7828]

If you're willing to give up some range (but get better IQ for it) then have a look at the 24-105 as well. Great walkaround for me, in terms of general photography.

 

[M.ST]

Forget all the travelling zooms and take the EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS and the 70-300 IS with you.

Thats all you need for over 80 percent of all possible shots.

 

[Aglet]

The very good 15-85mm + 70-200 f/4 L IS would be my light combo.
Good FL coverage and IQ for the $, small & light. You'll likely find yourself using the 15-85 a lot.

My current 2-cam on-the-go solution is a D5100 with 18-105mm VR and a 7D with 100-400 L IS. Missing a little on the wide end but fits in one Pelican case, with some accessories and can do a heck of a lot with those 2 systems.

 

[Michael]

Thanks for all your suggestions guys! Really appreciate it

 

[Paul W. H]

As a side issue the 70-200 f/2.8 L works with both the 1.4x AND the 2.0x converters which make this a very versatile lens.

I took a 17-55 f/2.8 and a 28-300 L to Paris last Christmas and it covered most subjects.

 

[Michael]

how did you find the 28-300 walking around Paris?

 

[Menace]

Personally, I'd also suggest the 17-55 f2.8 and 70-300L for your travel needs.

 

[Paul W. H]

how did you find the 28-300 walking around Paris?

If you mean security, I was not alone and I had a Sling Bag (that held all the kit) with me that did not have a brand label saying "Camera Inside" and when we were on the Metro the bag was resting on my chest and not my back or side.

If you mean comfort, No problem for me as I am a rather large gentleman and I use an OP/TECH USA strap that makes the camera and lens appear to feel lighter.

 

[tomscott]

Everyone always forgets the 70-300mm DO IS.

I had one of these and it was a really great lens. It is tiny, about the same size as a 17-55mm, great range and fairly quick for a zoom.

There will always be people that talk about the halo effect but it didn't bother me at all and is only really noticeable when pixel peeping. If its a travel lens for the size you will find it hard to beat. The white Ls are awesome and I swapped mine for a 70-200mm but its huge and heavy and over the top if you are traveling.

I would say have a look see what you think. I wish I never sold mine.

 

[Michael]

how did you find the 28-300 walking around Paris?

If you mean security, I was not alone and I had a Sling Bag (that held all the kit) with me that did not have a brand label saying "Camera Inside" and when we were on the Metro the bag was resting on my chest and not my back or side.

If you mean comfort, No problem for me as I am a rather large gentleman and I use an OP/TECH USA strap that makes the camera and lens appear to feel lighter.

I use a similar 'security' solution but look at the strap your using, sound convenient

 

[Michael]

Everyone always forgets the 70-300mm DO IS.

I had one of these and it was a really great lens. It is tiny, about the same size as a 17-55mm, great range and fairly quick for a zoom.

There will always be people that talk about the halo effect but it didn't bother me at all and is only really noticeable when pixel peeping. If its a travel lens for the size you will find it hard to beat. The white Ls are awesome and I swapped mine for a 70-200mm but its huge and heavy and over the top if you are traveling.

I would say have a look see what you think. I wish I never sold mine.

That is an important aspect! Did you swap to the new USM II? If so have you noticed IQ differences compared to the 70-300?

 

[K-amps]

Forget all the travelling zooms and take the EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS and the 70-300 IS with you.

Thats all you need for over 80 percent of all possible shots.

+1 especially if 70-300L. Wonderfully sharp and contrasty. Vivid colors. Relatively Smaller too.

 

[tomscott]

Everyone always forgets the 70-300mm DO IS.

I had one of these and it was a really great lens. It is tiny, about the same size as a 17-55mm, great range and fairly quick for a zoom.

There will always be people that talk about the halo effect but it didn't bother me at all and is only really noticeable when pixel peeping. If its a travel lens for the size you will find it hard to beat. The white Ls are awesome and I swapped mine for a 70-200mm but its huge and heavy and over the top if you are traveling.

I would say have a look see what you think. I wish I never sold mine.

That is an important aspect! Did you swap to the new USM II? If so have you noticed IQ differences compared to the 70-300?

The 70-300mm DO IS is not an L lens. But it is about half the size of the 70-300mm L IS. The 70-300mm DO is USM but not II and has the first gen IS so 2 stops. Obviously the IQ of the L is better but it is heavier and a lot bigger. Also stands out like a sore thumb.

But it is a compromise, if you want something small lightweight and inconspicuous then it fits the bill. If you want ultimate lens the 28-300mm although it is very very heavy very expensive and a complete pain if you ask me. 70-300mm L is also a great lens but is big and also stands out. Would be a pain to carry around.

The DO gives good IQ although does have the halo effect, has IS is USM and is the same size as a standard zoom. Good compromise but obviously not for everyone.

The 70-300mm DO is the one on the right! next to the 75-300mm (non L) and the 100-400mm Its so small! Also comes with a hood.

If I was going traveling with the 7D I would take a 17-55mm IS, 70-300mm DO IS, possibly the 10-22mm or a 35mm.

Some more info.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-300mm-f-4.5-5.6-DO-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Obviously highlights the problems but I have taken some great shots with mine when I had it. You can get them pre-owned for around £500 in perfect condition.

 

[M.ST]

You can forget lmost all DO lenses, because the NON-DO-LENSES performs better.

 

[tomscott]

They are also a lot bigger.

The small drop in IQ for a lens that is so small and portable is acceptable IMO. Nothing on the market can touch it for size.

When your traveling space is important so is weight. With a 70-300mm DO and a 17-55mm you coud get away with taking a small camera bag whereas with any of the others you would have to take a much bigger back to fit the glass in.

Always a compromise.