# Canon 28-300L 'super-zoom'



## JEL (Jan 7, 2015)

What do you think?

Is the Canon 28-300L (from 2004 if I'm not mistaken) a safe buy or will some update or new 'super-zoom' be seeing the light of day anytime soon?

(It's a heavy investment, for me at least, if a new version is close. And I obviously wouldn't like to make a wrong move with this kind of price-tag. I'm looking to fit it on a 5D3)

Thanks in advance, and happy 2015


----------



## wickidwombat (Jan 7, 2015)

no sign of an update for the L coming, look second hand they seem to move around a bit but to be honest after having the lens and selling it its not worth the money better off with the 16-35 a fast 50 and the 70-200
a 16-35 f4L IS + 50f1.4 + 70-200 f4L IS is going to cost less weigh less and perform alot better and is a full stop faster in the 70-200 range which can also take a 2x TC and still AF on the 5Dmk3 (although performance drops alot so better off with the 1.4xTC

if you really want a super zoom consider the eos m and tamron 18-200 on it...


----------



## JEL (Jan 7, 2015)

wickidwombat said:


> no sign of an update for the L coming



Thanks for your reply


----------



## dash2k8 (Jan 7, 2015)

I used my friend's once and absolutely hated it. Its combination of price/so-so IQ/weight/laughable aperture totally turned me off. For that money, you can buy two excellent lenses that offer much better image quality and save your back, too. I honestly do not think this lens will see a refresh and will probably cheer when it becomes extinct.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jan 7, 2015)

I'd only consider the 28-300L if you really can't change lenses where you intend to use it and need the focal length range. If you're considering covering that range with the fewest lenses possible, you might consider a 24-70 f/4 IS or 24-105 f/4 IS paired with a 70-300L. The combo will cost less, weigh less and provide better IQ.


----------



## JEL (Jan 8, 2015)

Once again; thank you for replying 

I've just learned that Canon has made a fairly new cinema-'SuperZoom' (a 30-300mm), but many times more expensive and 'only' covering Super35 sensors (which I believe is equivalent to APS-C sensors)
So not really a replacement for the 28-300 for FF.


----------



## Gareth (Jan 8, 2015)

Covering this range, there's also the Tamron 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 Di VC PZD (the new one for $850, not the original, which I had and it was awful). The new one seems decent around f/8 up to 200mm. At 300mm it looks a bit soft regardless. No idea how it compares to the L.


----------



## Jim Saunders (Jan 8, 2015)

I tried one briefly at Image Square; compared to lenses which do a better job over narrower zoom ranges it was underwhelming at best. There are enough choices in 24-70 and 70-200 (plus a 1.4x if you need) that the only real appeal is taking it into environments where you really don't want to change lenses.

Jim


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Jan 8, 2015)

Gareth said:


> Covering this range, there's also the Tamron 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 Di VC PZD (the new one for $850, not the original, which I had and it was awful). The new one seems decent around f/8 up to 200mm. At 300mm it looks a bit soft regardless. No idea how it compares to the L.



+1, this seems to be a better value lens and it's smaller and lighter.


----------



## John Thomas (Jan 8, 2015)

I find it quite useful. 

Of course, it is heavy but there are situations when you cannot afford swapping the lenses (for me the main reason is that the things are happening quickly in front of me) or you cannot afford to carry more than one lens with you (for ex. trekking).

Quality is good - no complaints from my side. A slight barrel distortion at the wide end but this is to be expected.

Some examples:

http://asceticexperience.com/portfolio/joy-sacrifice/
http://asceticexperience.com/portfolio/contrast/
http://asceticexperience.com/portfolio/why-animals-attack-humans/
http://asceticexperience.com/portfolio/holy-monastery-kostamonitou-kastamonitou/
http://asceticexperience.com/portfolio/chain-reactions/

Just my2c & HTH


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 8, 2015)

I had one for a while, it was a convenient lens, handles identically to the 100-400L (the original). Image quality equivalent to the 24-105L, which is very good. You're always going to sacrifice something with a superzoom lens, with just about every lens on the market what you sacrifice is IQ; with the 28-300L, you sacrifice size, weight, and money but get very good IQ.

After getting the 24-70/2.8L II and 70-300L, which are a step up in IQ, I didn't use the 28-300L much and eventually sold it. As I often do with lenses I'm not sure I'll really like, I bought the 28-300L used (and actually made a profit when I sold it). That may be an option to consider.


----------



## Act444 (Jan 8, 2015)

I tried the 28-300 for a couple of months. On the plus side, nothing can beat its versatility - it was awesome to get close ups during concerts...and then quickly pull back to capture the whole scene. Or vice versa. A wide variety of shots is available to the shooter with this lens. On a 6D, I was even able to continue shooting after the sun went down because of the 6D's incredible high ISO performance. Also, considering the class of lens it's in, the image quality is reasonable - it's ok.

But that's also one of its drawbacks; the image quality is just "ok"....especially when compared to many of my other lenses (24-70, 70-200, 100L, etc.). Which is fine by itself, but when I started to factor in the significant size and weight of this lens...and its high price and profile...I ultimately didn't keep it for very long. Didn't really fit my style of shooting (it made more sense to either take two cameras or one lens one day and another the next...I shot one event with the 28-300 one day and switched to the 70-200 (f4) the next. The difference in IQ was staggering. After that I was convinced the 28-300 wasn't for me...not to say it was an easy decision to let it go though. But I have no regrets.

I do hope they introduce a non-L version that is smaller and lighter.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 8, 2015)

I've had the 35-350mm L and the 28-300mm L IS. They are both nice lenses. I managed to buy them used locally from craigslist sellers, and after using them a while decided that I needed faster lenses.

For outdoor use in good light, there is nothing that can match them in a superzoom lens.

Here is a shot from the 35-350mm L at 350mm









And from the 28-300mm L a couple of years later. Its a 100% crop since the robin was far away.


----------



## dash2k8 (Jan 8, 2015)

> For outdoor use *in good light*


----------



## LovePhotography (Jan 8, 2015)

I'd buy the EF 35-350mm. IQ slightly better, and less money. Lots of great like new copies out there. Sold mine for $1400 a few months ago. It will never go to $0. Always be worth ~$1000 I'd guess. Let someone else eat the depreciation. http://www.ebay.com/itm/Canon-EF-35-350-mm-F-3-5-5-6-L-USM-Lens-/111568792039?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item19fa04a9e7


----------



## dash2k8 (Jan 9, 2015)

I would say that *most* of the experts/enthusiasts on this forum are demanding of a certain level of image quality, and these superzooms just *barely *meet those requirements. With 10x magnification there's no way these lenses can compare to the shorter-ratio zoom lenses in quality. These are only good for convenience (although the weight and storage space required mostly negate that). I think of them as glorified versions of the 18-200mm.


----------



## JEL (Jan 9, 2015)

Thanks all 

I think I can safely say you've talked me out of the 28-300L


----------



## Cosmicbug (Jan 9, 2015)

JEL said:


> Thanks all
> 
> I think I can safely say you've talked me out of the 28-300L



I have the precursor to the 28-300L. 
35-350L. I've used this lens for 15 yrs and love its practicality and convenience. The IQ is good too. It's one of my most used lenses and covers 95% of requiremnts without a lens change.

I would suggest you go into a store and try the 28-300 on your camera for handling or better still, hire one for the day and try out.
To break it down to two lenses to get the same range will not save you any on carry weight and will definitely involve more bulk in your bag.
Good luck


----------



## Cosmicbug (Jan 9, 2015)

Taken with the 35-350 at 350...
I'd imagine the 28-300 with more modern tech would be as good or better.


----------



## johfot (Jun 6, 2015)

JEL said:


> What do you think?
> 
> Is the Canon 28-300L (from 2004 if I'm not mistaken) a safe buy or will some update or new 'super-zoom' be seeing the light of day anytime soon?
> 
> ...



I've been a happy owner of the 28-300 for about 5 years now. The lens is heavy, no doubt about that. Most of my pictures are shot during filed trips (weekends) with my office. With just 1 minute to frame the picture and to find interesting angles. To be able to rapidly shift from 28 to 300 with out a lens shift has been critical. Yep, the Canon EF 300/2,8 L IS II USM would do a better job at 300mm, but the 28-300 doesn't have to be ashamed about it's performance. 95 out of 100 off my instagram pictures (@johfot) are shot with the 28-300, the others by Canon EF 24-70/2,8 L II USM or the Canon EF 14/2,8L II USM. 
Thumbs up for the 28-300, looking forward for it's replacement


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jun 7, 2015)

dash2k8 said:


> I would say that *most* of the experts/enthusiasts on this forum are demanding of a certain level of image quality, and these superzooms just *barely *meet those requirements. With 10x magnification there's no way these lenses can compare to the shorter-ratio zoom lenses in quality. These are only good for convenience (although the weight and storage space required mostly negate that). I think of them as glorified versions of the 18-200mm.



This is why my personal wish is for a 25-200L, for a "mere" 8x zoom (the exactness of those numbers make my brain happy), or even a 28-200L for just 7x. The latter would be the FF equivalent of the 18-135 STM I love. Heck, make it non-L for all I care. Use the body from the 100-400ii and call it an IS STM (or USM) with weather-sealing but less advanced glass. I'd still be pre-ordering.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 7, 2015)

LonelyBoy said:


> dash2k8 said:
> 
> 
> > I would say that *most* of the experts/enthusiasts on this forum are demanding of a certain level of image quality, and these superzooms just *barely *meet those requirements. With 10x magnification there's no way these lenses can compare to the shorter-ratio zoom lenses in quality. These are only good for convenience (although the weight and storage space required mostly negate that). I think of them as glorified versions of the 18-200mm.
> ...



No need to preorder. Since you recommended the 35-350L in another thread, here you go...

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-28-200mm-f-3.5-5.6-USM-Lens-Review.aspx


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jun 7, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> No need to preorder. Since you recommended the 35-350L in another thread, here you go...
> 
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-28-200mm-f-3.5-5.6-USM-Lens-Review.aspx



This part hurts: "But, image quality delivered by this lens is ... well ... poor.". Ugh. Thanks for the heads up, though - I had no idea this thing existed, and it might be worth having at $167 for certain situations. I was really wanting IS and something on par with the 18-135, which has IQ I'd call well above "poor". My actual plan, failing a decent EF superzoom, was to use a 70-300L for race shots, and the damn smartphone for the WA group shots.

I recommended the 35-350 because the guy wanted longer and didn't mind losing some wide end, which points at 35-350.


----------



## JEL (Jun 8, 2015)

johfot said:


> To be able to rapidly shift from 28 to 300 with out a lens shift has been critical. Yep, the Canon EF 300/2,8 L IS II USM would do a better job at 300mm, but the 28-300 doesn't have to be ashamed about it's performance. 95 out of 100 off my instagram pictures (@johfot) are shot with the 28-300, the others by Canon EF 24-70/2,8 L II USM or the Canon EF 14/2,8L II USM.
> Thumbs up for the 28-300, looking forward for it's replacement



Thank you


----------

