With a new 100-400L, is the 28-300L Next?

[Steve Todd]

I've had my 100-400L since borrowing one from the CPS folks at the 1999 Daytona 500. It's been a great lens. However, I must admit I have the "II" version on pre-order (and the current one sold). As the 28-300L is now 10-years-old, I hope it will be the next zoom lens on Canon's list to get a make over.

My 28-300L is the lens I pick when I want to keep things simple. Not having to change lenses on the move and the ability to cover just about every subject, has made it my "Go To" travel lens, mounted on one of my FF bodies. Although I've never had an issue with the push-pull design of either lenses, I can see the logic in moving away from that type of zoom operation.

So, the question is, will we see a redesigned 28-300L anytime soon?

 

[Loswr]

Personally, I'd quite likely preorder a 28-300L II. I'd prefer push-pull, but I'd be ok with a design like the 100-400 II. I had and subsequently sold both the 100-400L and 28-300L. The 100-400 went for lack of use after getting the 600 II. The 28-300 delivers similar IQ to the 24-105L, and while quite good, after upgrading to the 24-70/2.8 II and getting the 70-300L, I preferred the better IQ of those two lenses and sacrificed the convenience of the 28-300. A new 28-300 II with an upgraded IQ like the 100-400L would be very attractive to me.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

The 28-300L is relatively new, replacing the 35-350mmL just a few years ago. They are pretty slow sellers.

I'm doubting that a slow selling lens will be released in a seriously falling market.

 

[lol]

I would think a 28-300 non-L would be a possible candidate, especially if they want to expand full frame more into the (relatively) affordable mainstream.

 

[Deleted member 7828]

The 28-300 delivers similar IQ to the 24-105L, and while quite good, after upgrading to the 24-70/2.8 II and getting the 70-300L, I preferred the better IQ of those two lenses and sacrificed the convenience of the 28-300.

Hmm....not quite my experience but then maybe I have a really good 24-105. I picked up a 28-300 at what was then a good price and I found it to be just borderline "good enough" IQ wise...however, the convenience was unbeatable. I remember shooting a two-day event - one day I took the 28-300, the other day taking the 70-200 F4 (and instead using an M/11-22 to cover the wide angle). I was blown away at the quality difference. The 28-300 is hard to beat for convenience but ultimately I decided to let it go mainly due to the IQ sacrifice (and other reasons too).

I think a non-L version is more likely than an L-version replacement. I'd appreciate a smaller, less conspicuous version... I didn't exactly appreciate the excessive attention that lens drew when I used it at public events anyway...

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Unlike the APS-C user market, that loves the zoom lens "all in one", there are few photographers who use full frame, willing to carry a lens L not so good in current cameras, above 20 megapixel.

I must confess that there was a time when I believed that Sigma 18-200mm would be my final lens. ;D But do not think the 6D and 5D Mark iii users are so innocent these days.

I see space on Canon product line for a lens 28-200mm, or 24-200mm non-L, weighing less than 1 kilogram.

 

[Loswr]

The 28-300 delivers similar IQ to the 24-105L, and while quite good, after upgrading to the 24-70/2.8 II and getting the 70-300L, I preferred the better IQ of those two lenses and sacrificed the convenience of the 28-300.

Hmm....not quite my experience but then maybe I have a really good 24-105.

Or maybe I had a really good 28-300? I owned two copies of the 24-105, both were very good at the wide end (except for the barrel distortion) and slightly less sharp but still quite good at the long end. However, the 24-70 II is simply a stellar lens and definitely sharper than the 24-105.

 

[Deleted member 7828]

The 28-300 delivers similar IQ to the 24-105L, and while quite good, after upgrading to the 24-70/2.8 II and getting the 70-300L, I preferred the better IQ of those two lenses and sacrificed the convenience of the 28-300.

Hmm....not quite my experience but then maybe I have a really good 24-105.

Or maybe I had a really good 28-300? I owned two copies of the 24-105, both were very good at the wide end (except for the barrel distortion) and slightly less sharp but still quite good at the long end. However, the 24-70 II is simply a stellar lens and definitely sharper than the 24-105.

I have experience with multiple copies of the 24-105 as well, and actually saw slight variations in performance too (one had mediocre performance at wide end away from center, another was real good at wide end but meh at 105, and the 3rd (the "sole survivor", so to speak) seems to be the best of the lot (great at 24 apart from distortion, not bad at 105 either). One thing that WAS consistent across all copies is 50mm being the "sweet spot" - the lens is REALLY sharp there...contrast that to the 24-70 F4 where 50mm is the weak link and the difference is obvious even at smaller sizes...

As for the 24-70 2.8 II, I'd agree it's sharper than the 24-105 but it's not perfect by any means...I find it slightly softer at 70mm than the other focal lengths at 2.8...plus, I experience occasional back-focusing with mine in certain situations (which ended up ruining more than one shot) but that's probably for another thread...

I had only one 28-300 so not sure if I had a "good one" or not.

 

[Bob Howland]

The 28-300L is relatively new, replacing the 35-350mmL just a few years ago. They are pretty slow sellers.

I'm doubting that a slow selling lens will be released in a seriously falling market.

Does June 2004 qualify as "just a few years ago"?

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/lens/ef/data/telephoto_zoom/ef_28~300_35~56lis_usm.html

Anyway, it's too late for me. I bought the latest version of the Tamron 28-300 as a vacation lens and it's proving to be pretty good.

 

[Loswr]

Does June 2004 qualify as "just a few years ago"?

For L-series lenses...yes!

 

[dgatwood]

I've had my 100-400L since borrowing one from the CPS folks at the 1999 Daytona 500. It's been a great lens. However, I must admit I have the "II" version on pre-order (and the current one sold). As the 28-300L is now 10-years-old, I hope it will be the next zoom lens on Canon's list to get a make over.

Personally, I'd much rather see them replace it with a 16–300 DO, or thereabouts. Superzooms are the perfect use for DO, IMO.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

The 28-300L is relatively new, replacing the 35-350mmL just a few years ago. They are pretty slow sellers.

I'm doubting that a slow selling lens will be released in a seriously falling market.

Does June 2004 qualify as "just a few years ago"?

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/lens/ef/data/telephoto_zoom/ef_28~300_35~56lis_usm.html

Anyway, it's too late for me. I bought the latest version of the Tamron 28-300 as a vacation lens and it's proving to be pretty good.

It does to me, I remember all the posts about it then. I've had both the 35-350 and the 28-300 IS. Both are very good lenses when you consider that they have a 10:1 zoom ration or higher. Its very difficult to make a superzoom like that. The lenses were aimed at PJ's, but many of those have found other jobs, since everyone is walking around with a camera phone, and uploads photos of accidents or other urgent news instantly.

here is the 35-350 at 35mm

At 350mm

My 28-300 at 300mm handheld 1/125 sec, cropped to 100% with my 5D MK III.