# Would you buy a new 28-300 L IS II lens and for how much?



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 6, 2013)

Here is another (at the moment hypothetical) lens which I think would make for an intersting converation.

If Canon released a new "EF 28-300mm L IS II" lens (with the same height, weight, IQ, sharpness, AF performance, aperture etc etc as the EF 70-300 L IS), would you see a reason to acquire such a lens for yourself? (*please* try not to answer for the rest of the world ;D ... just answer if you see a reason for yourself to buy it).
and
How much would you be willing to pay for it?

As for me, I see a great potential for such a lens ... it most likely will remain on my camera during vacations or daytime outings etc ... and I'd be willing to pay $2500 to $3000


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 6, 2013)

I had the original, while a good lens it was HEAVY and not really all that convenient for travel due to the size
I got used to the push pull system although I have to say I prefer not to have push pull

I found f5.6 too slow and 300mm not long enough I used the kenko 1.4 TC on it with a 1D to extend the reach
and it was acceptable too

I eventually sold it

Perhaps if the hypothetical mk II you suggest had the following

- made from engineering plastic like the 100 f2.8L and 24-70 mk2 the weight would come down alot
- ring type zoom instead of push pull
- Hybrid IS 
- and a macro mode similar to the 24-70 f4L it might be a better travel lens
- An integrated lens hood like the 300f4L and 400f5.6L would be really sweet too.
- Possibly make it f4.5 on the long end instead of 5.6? say f2.8 to f4.5 instead of f3.5 to f5.6

maybe $2500


----------



## Smurf1811 (Feb 6, 2013)

wickidwombat said:


> I had the original, while a good lens it was HEAVY and not really all that convenient for travel due to the size
> I got used to the push pull system although I have to say I prefer not to have push pull
> 
> I found f5.6 too slow and 300mm not long enough I used the kenko 1.4 TC on it with a 1D to extend the reach
> ...




+1
Sounds good.....i take one


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 6, 2013)

wickidwombat said:


> Perhaps if the hypothetical mk II you suggest had the following
> - made from engineering plastic like the 100 f2.8L and 24-70 mk2 the weight would come down alot
> - ring type zoom instead of push pull
> - Hybrid IS
> ...


I agree ... but I don't know about f/2.8 - f/4.5 for $2500? ... I'm not saying that it is not possible but (going by Canon's recent pricing structure) your offer of $2500 will cause mass heart attacks (possible suicides) to the decision makers of pricing structure at Canon ;D ... if they do produce 28-300 f/2.8-4.5 L IS II lens, I think Canon would probably sell it for $4000 at least.


----------



## Random Orbits (Feb 6, 2013)

2300. Really would consider it if it were the size of and had the IQ of the 70-300L.


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 6, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps if the hypothetical mk II you suggest had the following
> ...



I know it was wishfull thinking! 
I think the aperture is possible though since the 300 f4L uses a 77mm filter if they made this 82mm and only f4.5
it would give them some flexability to correct some of the other problems inherent in a super zoom


----------



## alan_k (Feb 6, 2013)

It would need a focus limiter (maybe the old one already has this?). 
If this is an all-around lens, I'd probably take 3.5-5.6 for the cost and portability factor. Not that 2.8-4.5 wouldn't be great, but the whole point of this would be a walk-around lens.

I shoot on a crop body so I'm not sure this would ever be a one-lens solution for me, but it might pair well with a UWA zoom. The amount I'd be willing to pay for it is probably a lot lower than what it would actually go for. 

I'd guess if it was 2.8-5.6, it would be 2700, if it was 3.5-5.6, it might come down to 2000 or so. If I remember right even lenses like the Tamron 18-270 pushing $800, so imagine an L version of that, and you've got to imagine it will be ~3x as expensive.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 7, 2013)

I has the non IS version (35-350mm) and the IS Version that I bought used locally from Craigslist. Both were impressive lenses, and reasonably sharp. I ended up selling both, simply because I do more low light work, and they did not get much use. I could certainly recommend either one for someone who had reasonable light and needed the wide range of zoom.


----------



## bycostello (Feb 7, 2013)

be a good one for weddings, not so many lens changes...


----------



## JerryKnight (Feb 7, 2013)

bycostello said:


> be a good one for weddings, not so many lens changes...



Dear God, no! 3.7 *pounds*? I'll take my bag of lenses for weddings. I like a heavy camera because it's inherently more stable, but a 3.7 lb lens on a ~3 lb camera (add on a flash too) for 8 hours is excessive.

This lens is good for several uses, but I would not count weddings among them.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 7, 2013)

JerryKnight said:


> bycostello said:
> 
> 
> > be a good one for weddings, not so many lens changes...
> ...


You are talking about the old L lens ... we are talking about a hypothetical 28-300 L IS II lens that weights similar to the current 70-300 L IS (around 2.3 lb / 1 kg) ... it may not be good for the typical western wedding look, but there are many cultures in the world that have their weddings in very good lighting and/or out in the open ... and they usually prefer to have deep depth of field in the photos ... lot of Indian wedding photographers cater to this market as the clients prefer it that way to get everyone tack sharp in the image ... you would be surprised how some people take offense in India when the guests are out of focus (even when the you actually composed the image for the couple being married - doesn't matter if the guest is somewhere in the corner of the image) ... it may not be something many of us like, but you gotta give what the client wants, especailly when they are paying for it.


----------



## candyman (Feb 7, 2013)

When I am in the field, I use 2 cameras: 7D with 70-300mm L and 5D MKIII with 24-105. The 16-35 MK II is in my bag.


Now, if the 28-300 II has better IQ than the combination of 24 until 300, yes. Even if the weight of this one lens is more to carry with my camera. I would have it on the 7D and the 16-35 MK II on the 5D MK III

For the moment I got used to my combination and I am pleased with it.


----------

