Will the 28-300L be upgraded??

[RGF]

The 28-300L is a unique lens - exceptional range and ok, but not great IQ.

As Canon cycles through it's lenses, any rumors, thoughts, etc about the future of this lens.

 

[Jim Saunders]

I figure Canon's take on this one is that good enough is good enough and if it isn't there is the 24-70, the 70-200 and the 300 f/4 if you want to go that far.

Jim

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

It was upgraded a few years ago from the 35-350mm L non IS. Don't look for another upgrade soon, its a very slow seller. The lens was used by photojournalists, but they seem to be fewer every year, so the main customer base is going away.

I've had both the 35-350 and the 28-350, and they are excellent lenses. A 10-1 or 11-1 zoom is a big compromise, so don't expect the same IQ as a 3-1 zoom, it won't happen. This is by far the best of the super zooms.

 

[Bruce Photography]

It was upgraded a few years ago from the 35-350mm L non IS. Don't look for another upgrade soon, its a very slow seller. The lens was used by photojournalists, but they seem to be fewer every year, so the main customer base is going away.

I've had both the 35-350 and the 28-350, and they are excellent lenses. A 10-1 or 11-1 zoom is a big compromise, so don't expect the same IQ as a 3-1 zoom, it won't happen. This is by far the best of the super zooms.

All true about the IQ tradeoff when you use a superzoom, however I like the Nikon 18-300 for the crop cameras and the 28-300 for the full frame cameras. Maybe I got a good copy but I shoot events with both of these cameras (out of doors) and the results are quite good especially for closeups at a moderate distance. The Nikon 28-300 is just way smaller and easier to handle than the Canon 28-300 with the darn push pull tank like housing. I really like the Canon 70-300L and I wish Nikon had something similar but their 70-300 is just ok but not as good as Canon.

 

[Haydn1971]

I'd love to see a smaller black L superzoom - something like a 24-135mm perhaps even longer at the tele end - my current kit is great, but I'm always cursing when I have to manage with a single lens

 

[bycostello]

does it need upgrading?

 

[Loswr]

Doesn't mean there'll be an update to the lens, but Canon patented a new 28-300 design just over a year ago.

http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/08/patents-28-135-f4-5-6-28-300-f3-5-5-6/

 

[RGF]

With all the other lenses that are being upgraded, wonder if the 28-300L made the list.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

I can not believe another 28-300 will be released, because there is not much to change, without increasing further the weight and price. :-\ It makes more sense 28-200mm F4 IS. 8) It would be a very versatile lens, and could still weigh less than 1 kg, and cost less than $ 2000.

 

[cliffwang]

I would be really interested in new 28-300L if Canon improve the IQ of it. The current version is fine, but not good enough for me. Hopefully Canon can release a really L level 28-300, so that will be my travel solution.

 

[Loswr]

The current 28-300L is equivalent to the 24-105L across their respective ranges - it's a very good lens in its own right, and the best FF superzoom available. Still, I now find myself bringing the 24-70/2.8L II and 70-300L instead of the 28-300L (and I sold the 24-105 after getting the 24-70 II).

Since I bought the 28-300L used at an opportunistic price, I'll be able to sell it for at least what I paid, and likely more.

 

[RGF]

Since I bought the 28-300L used at an opportunistic price, I'll be able to sell it for at least what I paid, and likely more.

I have trimmed my kit so I have minimal duplications. Only overlapping lens are

24-105 and 24-70 II. LIke the 24-70 much more but the range of the 24-105 is great.
70-300L and 70-200 F2.8 II. Again the extra range (and less weight) are the reason I keep this lens.
300F2.8 (V1) and 200-400. Not sure what I will do with 300. Great to have a light weight great white but really don't use it too often.

 

[Loswr]

I have trimmed my kit so I have minimal duplications.

I don't mind duplication. For example, I've got the 70-200/2.8L IS II, 70-300L, and 100-400L. It's fine, as long as they have a use...and I actually use them. After getting the 24-70 II, I stopped using the 24-105, and couldn't see using it further. I had been using the 28-300L for travel, but since getting the 70-300L, I've taken the 24-70 + 70-300 instead - broader range, better IQ, takes up the same bag space, and I don't mind the lens changes.

 

[RGF]

I have trimmed my kit so I have minimal duplications.

I don't mind duplication. For example, I've got the 70-200/2.8L IS II, 70-300L, and 100-400L. It's fine, as long as they have a use...and I actually use them. After getting the 24-70 II, I stopped using the 24-105, and couldn't see using it further. I had been using the 28-300L for travel, but since getting the 70-300L, I've taken the 24-70 + 70-300 instead - broader range, better IQ, takes up the same bag space, and I don't mind the lens changes.

The only advantage (IMO) of the 28-300L is convenience. When action is fast that you can not change lens or even grab another body

 

[dgatwood]

The only advantage (IMO) of the 28-300L is convenience. When action is fast that you can not change lens or even grab another body

And weight, at least compared with you're carrying a camera with multiple lenses around all day.

What I'd love to see, at least in theory, is something closer to a 24-400 DO.

 

[Loswr]

The only advantage (IMO) of the 28-300L is convenience. When action is fast that you can not change lens or even grab another body

And weight, at least compared with you're carrying a camera with multiple lenses around all day.

The combo of the 24-70 II + 70-300L is only 6 oz. heavier than the 28-300L. The weight of the 28-300L in the backpack isn't an issue, nor is carrying it during use (I frequently carry the 70-200 II, on the Blackrapid strap or SpiderPro Holster for a whole day).

I don't usually find myself in a situation where I need to go from wide to long tele with not time to change lenses. For me, it was about putting together a 'small' travel kit with zoom(s) covering a broad range and a couple of more specialized lenses, with all of it fitting in a Lowepro Flipside 300 (I have bigger bags, but want a smaller load). For example, for urban outings/trips I'd take the zoom(s) – 28-300L but recently 24-70 II + 70-300L – with the TS-E 24L II and 16-35L II; for a family trip, the zoom(s) with the 35L and 135L, etc.

 

[tomscott]

Its a lens I have always been curious about, seems a good deal I like the 24-105mm IQ.

But I cant see it being a good travel companion its too big, heavy and conspicuous.

Although the weight difference between it and a 24-70/70/300mm combo isnt a lot, the weight is more widespread across the body as one will most likely be in a bag compared to say the 28-300mm sitting by your side all day even on a black rapid strap.

I would like to have a go with one, but for the price I would prefer to have the dedicated lenses.

Also it could be a good candidate to update, there are much better weight saving materials now and better elements but price would def shoot up and its expensive enough now lol