# New Superzoom Development? [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (May 8, 2015)

```
An unknown source has told us that Canon is actively working to develop a superzoom to replace the EF 28-300 f/3.5-5.6L IS. This is a lens that is rarely spoken about and I can’t remember a time when I’ve actually seen one in use. It’s big and weighs a lot (3.67lbs) and <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/319784-USA/Canon_9322A002AA_28_300mm_f_3_5_5_6L_IS_USM.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">costs around $2500</a>.</p>
<p>We were told that the goal of any such lens would be a significant weight reduction and to make the lens wider, possibly to 24mm. Is it possible that diffractive optics could cure the weight issue? Weight could be definitely be reduced, but I’d have a hard time believing cost would be.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t normally post this sort of thing without digging a little further, but it might be a lens worth talking about. As some of you may know, I own a rental company and we do not stock the EF 28-300 f/3.5-5.6L IS, as I think we’ve have 1 or 2 requests for it in 4 years.</p>
<p>Is an “L/DO” superzoom something photographers want? What would it take feature wise for you to purchase one of these. Is there a cost ceiling? <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=26293.0" target="_blank">Sound off in our forum</a>.</p>
<p>Happy Friday.</p>
```


----------



## Lee Jay (May 8, 2015)

I think what's wrong with this lens is that it's just too big for most people

I find that I use a range of 24-200 a lot more than 201-300, and when I do need the longer range, I generally plan for it with 400mm available.

Th 24-70 and 70-200 make a great pair, but what about in moderate to good light when you really don't need f/2.8?

In my view, a compact but high-performing 24-200/4-5.6L IS would be a pretty interesting lens. The 28-300 is optically quite good, but not wide enough, and too big and expensive.


----------



## Maximilian (May 8, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> Is an “L/DO” superzoom something photographers want? What would it take feature wise for you to purchase one of these. Is there a cost ceiling?


Hi Craig! 

I suppose it would all depend on the package. 
Great IQ in a lightweight package for a reasonable price surely would sell. 

Personally I don't really believe in DO delivering Great IQ for a reasonable price. I've seen what a 70-300 DO can do (or can't) and I see what a 400 DO II costs. 
If they could manage to built a 24-300 or maybe 24-250 that's lighter and smaller than the 28-300 and not more expensive I suppose they'd find a market for it. 

Personally I got so much used to a two lens (or more) solution that I highly likely wouldn't be part of that market. But there are others.


----------



## duppencf (May 8, 2015)

Hey, I just ordered a Tamron 28-300mm yesterday...so I'd say there's a market. but...

The old Canon 28-300mm wasn't on my radar because of weight. The reason for a full frame all-in-one is either travel or outdoors (hiking/skiing/etc.) where you might want another lens for low light or nice bokeh, but durring the day you don't want to change lenses. What do I wish the Tamron had?

24mm
F2.8 at the wide end only
higher IQ

I would take a slight weight penalty, but not a lot.


----------



## East Wind Photography (May 8, 2015)

I have been considering this lens for some time and my application would be video use, specifically sports. The big thing that has kept me from pulling the trigger is the dust pump design which is not suitable for video use. You end up with movement from zooming and a HUGE weight distribution problem from wide to tele.

Technical excellence aside since it would likely be an L variety, this lens would need to have an an internal or mostly internal zoom, A zoom ring that would cover the full range with less than half a turn, ability to accept an extender, and have a fairly consistent weight distribution from 24-300.

Cost should be under 3000.00


----------



## JonAustin (May 8, 2015)

I don't know how popular the 28-300 is, but I think it works against itself, in terms of its specs.

It's a range that many would like to cover without lens changes, but the wide range forces a number of optical compromises, particularly maximum aperture and optimum image quality. Those who are willing to accept those optical compromises are probably less likely to shell out the price to purchase, nor would they want to deal with its weight and bulk.

I don't see myself ever being in the market for a lens with such a wide range, for the above reasons.


----------



## Cosmicbug (May 8, 2015)

I would seriously consider this lens!
I still use my 35-350L on my 5D3 for commercial use and find the range covers 95% of my needs on event shoots.
The one lens does all helps when time is at a premium. Lens and card changing is a killer in my work. The long end of the zoom is so useful and is instantly available without a swapout to another long lens.
...
I do think more ppl would like a zoom with a 10X zoom capability if they tried one for a while. Not for everyone but more useful than carrying a 70-300 alongside a wide zoom.


----------



## matukas (May 8, 2015)

EF 24-240mm f/4L IS USM and 2500€ is a go for me :


----------



## kphoto99 (May 8, 2015)

The equivalent of 18-135 STM on crop for FF would be good for people moving from crop to FF. 
So 28-220 range. A better bet would be 24-250.


----------



## jcarapet (May 8, 2015)

I have always wondered why more people don't own this lens if they are willing to deal with the price and weight of the 70-200 f2.8. If in theory they hold to the same optical quality as all recent lenses, it would be a hard lens to pass up. Weight under 3 pounds is the key here as well.


----------



## East Wind Photography (May 8, 2015)

jcarapet said:


> I have always wondered why more people don't own this lens if they are willing to deal with the price and weight of the 70-200 f2.8. If in theory they hold to the same optical quality as all recent lenses, it would be a hard lens to pass up. Weight under 3 pounds is the key here as well.



70-200 II is sharp end to end, zooms the full range in just 1/4 turn, zoom and AF are all internal, lens is weather sealed, accepts 1.4 and 2x extenders, F2.8 through the entire zoom range. I believe it also maintains F2.8 cross type AF utilization, even with the extenders.


----------



## Yankeedog (May 8, 2015)

I'd accept the current ~$2500 price point or even a bit higher if they can shave significant weight and offer good IQ over a 28-300 or even better a 24-300 range.

Speaking as an adventure traveler, I've definitely had situations out in the bush where I had e.g., a 70-300 mounted, and suddenly found myself wanting wider for an unexpected opportunity. Wildlife often doesn't wait around for you to swap lenses or bodies. Further, when you're manpacking your gear over long distances, carrying two DSLR bodies with lenses mounted usually isn't practical. Also, in dusty environments especially lens swapping risks contaminating your body. So there's certainly value for me in a "mount it and leave it" lens proposition.

This said, I'm not particularly optimistic in the practical feasibility of a lens which covers this focal range with good IQ across the entire range *and* has a light weight. We'll see, but from my layperson's understanding of optics, there are definite technical challenges.


----------



## awinphoto (May 8, 2015)

Very Early on in my photography career, i had access to one of the earlier versions of this lens... Of course i had my 10D at that point and that was brand spanking new, with like a max ISO of like 800, 1600 was unusable. At the time, i loved that lens... a one size fits all L lens... But looking back at the archived photos i have with that lens, very few are actually tack sharp. It could be that my expectations and reality has changed from then to now... And perhaps with the newer cameras and higher ISO capabilities and higher shutter speeds I could probably get more keepers and better shots now... but alas i dont have that lens... anyone wish to donate it?


----------



## exquisitor (May 8, 2015)

I would like to see rather consumer oriented super zoom. 24-200 or 24-250 would be totally fine. If it would have decent performance and be around $1000, I would go with it.
The super zooms are especially appreciated for travel. But this folk is rather hobbyists and enthusiast, so $2500 and big&heavy is not an option. Professional photographers from another side appreciate a high image quality much more. The one-super-zoom option would have much more shortcomings in IQ than two-zoom option. That's why 24-70 + 70-200 option is more much more popular.


----------



## unfocused (May 8, 2015)

I always understood that this lens was intended for photojournalists trying to cover quickly changing scenes without having to change lenses. 

Given the quality of APS-C these days, I wonder if a 15-240 APS-C lens paired with a 7DII wouldn't be a more practical and lighter solution.


----------



## entoman (May 8, 2015)

Surely the whole idea of a superzoom is to be a hand-holdable, portable lens, that can be more or less permanently attached, replacing a bagful of primes, and with a reasonable price?

Thus lens doesn't meet any of those criteria - it weighs half a ton and is huge and unwieldy. It certainly couldn't be carried around for more than a few minutes without giving you severe neck pain. It's max aperture is very limited and the closest focus is unimpressive. Not only that, but it costs a bomb and is extremely unlikely even at optimum aperture to match any prime L glass.

I can't think of any type of photographer who would want this lens. Much much better to get 2 or 3 wide aperture primes, plus a long zoom for sports/action.

My ideal outfit would comprise of 17-40mm, 100mm IS macro, 180mm macro, 70-200mm and 100-400mm to complement my 5DMkiii and 7DMkii bodies.

Instead of wasting time developing this unwanted zoom, it would be far better if Canon were to add IS to some of the lenses where it is lacking e.g. the 180mm macro is incredibly sharp but very difficult to handhold due to the lack of IS.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (May 8, 2015)

With the success of 70-300L, I see no need for 28-300L. It makes more sense one F3.5-5.6L 24-200mm more compact, lightweight and not so expensive.


----------



## Etienne (May 8, 2015)

unfocused said:


> I always understood that this lens was intended for photojournalists trying to cover quickly changing scenes without having to change lenses.
> 
> Given the quality of APS-C these days, I wonder if a 15-240 APS-C lens paired with a 7DII wouldn't be a more practical and lighter solution.



+1 

ENG is the main reason to have this lens. APS-C would make it a perfect match for the C100 / C300. Make it L quality, and f/4-5.6 would probably be fine given the great high ISO performance of the C video cameras.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 8, 2015)

I've had the 35-350 L non IS and the 28-300mm L. That focal length is great, and the IQ is very good, but not as good as a 70-200 or 70-300.

The lens was originally used by PJ's who had to cover close and long photos of events, and did not want to have the extra lenses / bodies along.

Unfortunately, it has a small enough aperture that its not very useful in low light.

If there were a light weight DO version that was not priced out of sight, I'd be interested. However, I'm in doubt as to making the aperture significantly wider.


----------



## hazitroll (May 8, 2015)

On APS-C it would be nice to add nex to my 10-22. I have two primes as well, but this could complete all my wishes. It's 1.7 kg, it is not heavier than a 70-200 2.8. So it is on my wish list already, but an upgrade, without the push-pull design would be even more on my list.


----------



## ADBa (May 8, 2015)

With price, size and quality of the Nikon 28-300 
(http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=734&Camera=614&Sample=0&FLI=6&API=1&LensComp=358&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0) 
this would be worth a consideration for a walkaround lens. Perhaps i woud shoot it at M-RAW...
I do not own a Nikon Camera.


----------



## Random Orbits (May 8, 2015)

The 70-300L is a great travel lens. It won't win in IQ alone against the 70-200s and the 100-400 II, but it's close enough most of the time and weighs less and is more compact. Pair it with a 24 f/2.8 IS or a 35 f/2 IS or 40 f/2.8 and you've got most of FL needs covered with a light combo. If you need a zoom at the shorter end, then a 24-70 can replace the prime, and that is what what the 28-300 replacement should be competing against. If it weighs as little as the 70-300L, and extends to the 24/28mm and has similar IQ to the 70-300L and the 24-70 f/4 IS, then it's popularity will only depend on it's price. Price it around 2000-2400 (combined street prices of the 24-70 f/4 IS and 70-300L) and it should do OK.

Canon should also develop a 24-300 non L version. DSLR prices are falling as demand falls. The 24-70 non L is a good move, and a 24-300 non L would help round out the non-L zoom options.


----------



## Rob Wiebe (May 8, 2015)

I have the Canon 28-300 and it is a heavy lens but my favourite 'event' lens on my 1DX. It is heavy but delivers awesome IQ for out door natural light events. A lighter update would be nice!


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 8, 2015)

I had the 28-300L for a while, it's a very useful lens with optical performance across the range on par with the 24-105L, which is a very good lens. The size and weight weren't bothersome, the same as a 70-200/2.8 or 100-400. I sold it only after having the 24-70/2.8L II and 70-300L, which deliver better optical performance. 

I'd be interested in a 24-300L if they could deliver 70-300L optical quality in a package not heavier than the current lens, the lighter the better. 

There's no free lunch. There are lots of superzoom options (particularly for APS-C, but some for FF), that are relatively small, light and inexpensive – and trade off optical quality to achieve that. If you want a superzoom that delivers very good IQ with trade offs of size/weight/cost, Canon is the only game in town and I hope they improve upon that. 




ADBa said:


> With price, size and quality of the Nikon 28-300
> (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=734&Camera=614&Sample=0&FLI=6&API=1&LensComp=358&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0)
> this would be worth a consideration for a walkaround lens.



Any particular reason you're showing a comparison to the 70-300 non-L, which is particularly mushy at the long end? Try comparing to 300mm on the 70-300L or 28-300L.


----------



## Hector1970 (May 8, 2015)

Ideally I'd like a 14-500mm Zoom. That would be very useful if it was light.
I could take photographs of unicorns with it. 

A 24-300mm would be a great range if it were possible.
I'd accept a reasonable amount of weight for it's flexibility


----------



## zim (May 8, 2015)

unfocused said:


> I always understood that this lens was intended for photojournalists trying to cover quickly changing scenes without having to change lenses.
> 
> Given the quality of APS-C these days, I wonder if a 15-240 APS-C lens paired with a 7DII wouldn't be a more practical and lighter solution.


+1 and a lot more affordable!


----------



## Bob Howland (May 8, 2015)

I have the Canon 28-200 and the latest generation Tamron 28-300, which is what I actually use now. Both are OK single lens solutions with a 5D3, either as vacation lenses or when things are happening so fast that changing lenses and/or camera bodies is simply impractical.

What I really want is a 24-200 f/2.8-4.5 L IS that weighs only slightly more than the Tamron.


----------



## TeT (May 8, 2015)

a 24 200 L would rock.... For the 28 300 to go to 24 300 would require significant retooling in regards to weight.

It is a useful lens, as useful as the 70 300 L on the other end. The weight and cost is the killer though.

I have seen several users that I recognize as newspaper or magazine photographers shooting with it in the Houston area.

Never seen a mom or pop with one...


----------



## ADBa (May 8, 2015)

Quote from: ADBa on Today at 11:04:00 AM

With price, size and quality of the Nikon 28-300 
(http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=734&Camera=614&Sample=0&FLI=6&API=1&LensComp=358&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0) 
this would be worth a consideration for a walkaround lens.


Any particular reason you're showing a comparison to the 70-300 non-L, which is particularly mushy at the long end? Try comparing to 300mm on the 70-300L or 28-300L.

Agree with your wish for a high quality 24-tele lens. On paper, the 28-300 seems not bad at the tele end. Weight was the only reason for choosing the worst and a little bit stupid option for „my“ 300mm comparison (630 g (of the 70-300 non-L) would leave room for a light full frame wideangle, to have less than 1000 g lens weight). Currently i wear a 24-70 on my camera and miss some tele shots, because the 70-200 stays in the camera bag. 

(Sorry, how can i remove the SX60 below my logo?)


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 8, 2015)

ADBa said:


> ... only reason for choosing the worst and a little bit stupid option for „my“ 300mm comparison (630 g (of the 70-300 non-L) would leave room for a light full frame wideangle, to have less than 1000 g lens weight).
> 
> (Sorry, how can i remove the SX60 below my logo?)



Makes sense. I have the 70-300L for travel, the 70-200/2.8 II for local use. 

(Post more - the camera model under your name is linked to post count.)


----------



## rsolis (May 8, 2015)

This is something I have been hoping for. I have the Canon 28-300 f3.5-6.6 lens. I use it almost daily. Yeah it is a little heavy and requires some balancing, but in daylight or in a brightly lit room with today's newer cameras it "rocks." I am a wire service shooter and I purchased this lens shortly after Hurricane Katrina. I have used it at every tornado or hurricane I have covered since. This lens, a second body with the 16-35 and one flash and you are as mobile in the field as can be. You don't need to carry utility belts (Think Tank or Lowe-Pro) in the field if you are on deadline. You shoot fast, get back to your vehicle, check and see if you receive a signal to transmit and go to town. I would love a lighter lens or for that matter a faster lens. 

I use the lens when I cover the state legislature and if necessary, I use the canon flash with it. And I have used it when covering SEC football (in daylight of course). I have used it in bad weather (it is sealed) as well. 

It took a little time to adjust to the push pull of the zoom, but it is not a problem now. 

I will purchase a new one after reading how it does on its clinicals against the older model it will replace, when and if they do offer the lens. Till then, I will keep my "girl" in working order and in the field.

Rogelio


----------



## preppyak (May 8, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Or 24-240/f4 + 2x for 48-480/f8.
> 
> Nothing over $2000.


Unfortunately, I dont think these two things are possible together. I'd love it if it were. But I have to imagine 240 f/4 makes the lens heavy and expensive enough to be prohibitive on a zoom.

I would like to see the wider end be faster, 24mm f/2.8 stretching to 200-250mm f/5.6 would be something I'd consider for full-frame. Would basically cover all my needs in one lens, with a 14mm lens tacked on for night/landscape work.


----------



## AlleyB (May 8, 2015)

Canon...gimme a 24-250, constant f/4, please...in the $2K price range is fine.


----------



## PCM-madison (May 8, 2015)

I often find that the 35-350mm L + 6D combo works well on hikes when I will encounter a variety of subjects and don't want to change or carry multiple lenses. I don't own and have not used the 28-300mm L, but I understand it weighs about 300g more than the 35-350mm. An example of the 35-350mm + 6D @ 350mm, iso 800, f/8, 1/2000 (Great Horned Owl Chicks from earlier this Spring).


----------



## Act444 (May 8, 2015)

I had one of these. It's a lens I've dreamed about for a while and when I finally got the chance to use it, it was nice to have everything in one focal length. It allowed me to get shots that likely wouldn't have been possible with a combo set (due to time lost in switching cameras). However, the hit on IQ proved to be too great - since I don't shoot professionally, a missed shot here or there isn't the end of the world, and ultimately I preferred the superior image quality of the 70-200, 70-300 and even 24-105 in some cases. Bigger than that, though, was the weight and the conspicuousness. It REALLY attracted attention which made it more difficult at times to get certain shots. And although I was able to manage it for several hours, the "performance/weight ratio" was a bit disproportionate I felt. 

I'll stick to the two-camera or two-day strategy for local events. For travel, a smaller, lighter, non-L version will be welcomed though.


----------



## Tuke (May 8, 2015)

Aperture f/2.8 is probably too much to ask. 

Angenieux 25-250mm T3.5 $55,000
Angenieux 24-290mm T2.8 $88,000
Canon 30-300mm T2.95-3.7 $40,000
Fujinon 25-300mm T3.5 $44,000

How about constant f/4.0 with 77mm front diameter. Something to compete against Sony FE PZ 28-135mm f/4 G OSS?

Sony FE PZ 28-135mm f/4 $2,500
Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 $299


----------



## e17paul (May 8, 2015)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> With the success of 70-300L, I see no need for 28-300L. It makes more sense one F3.5-5.6L 24-200mm more compact, lightweight and not so expensive.



This 28-300 formula would make more sense as a cheap versatile plastic bodied lens. Perhaps as full frame continues its spread down market, this could become the FF equivalent of the EF-S 18-200.

I agree that 24-200 would be a more attractive single lens solution, I might even be tempted. I suspect that better IQ could be achieved with 24-200 than 28-300


----------



## Moulyneau (May 8, 2015)

24-300, lighter? Terrific! Hope it happens and that it doesn't take 3 years...


----------



## Gino (May 8, 2015)

I would definitely be a buyer of an updated L-superzoom lens, and I sure hope the lens makes it to production in the near future, as long as Canon can keep the weight to under 1,000g, and in a smaller size compared to the current 28-300L i.e. the size and weight of the 70-300L would be the max I'd be willing to deal with.

I have the Nikon 28-300mm superzoom, and I really like the lens for travel and family photos. The Nikon lens only weighs 800g, and it is very small compared to the Canon 28-300L.

Thanks


----------



## awinphoto (May 8, 2015)

dilbert said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Very Early on in my photography career, i had access to one of the earlier versions of this lens... Of course i had my 10D at that point and that was brand spanking new, with like a max ISO of like 800, 1600 was unusable. At the time, i loved that lens... a one size fits all L lens... But looking back at the archived photos i have with that lens, very few are actually tack sharp.
> ...



Dilbert, we're talking about 2001-2002 where the 10D didn't have AFMA... The lens wasn't mine, but i had access to it whenever i wanted it. Very well could be the 10D AF just wasn't fast enough for the subjects I was using it for... Very well could be after being spoiled the last few years with the likes of the 70-200, 85mm, 100mm and other L lenses that what i accepted as good back then was inferior to what i accept now, 13-14 years later... So long story short, no.


----------



## Chris Jankowski (May 8, 2015)

I think that technically, it should be possible to construct 24-200 F4-5.6 with high IQ and weighing less than 1 kg. With USM and IS, of course. It would need to have IQ associated with L lenses, but would not need to be metal. The black plastic like in the recent 16-35 F4 USM IS L will be fine, if it can decrease the weight.

If such lens was brought to market, and had the required IQ, I would be prepared to spend between $1,500 and $2,000 on it. 

It would become my bush/mountains travel lens. There is significant value in having only one universal lens in this kind of travel. I am pretty sure that I would use it for a lot of other types of photography too.

Then the next step would be to have a small and light FF body designed along the lines of 100D/SL1 - lets call it SLFF. Such body could weigh about 500g. I use 6D at the moment and it is just to heavy to cart on long treks. With battery etc. it is nearly 900 g. 100D/SL1 weighs 406 g. In the film days I used to have a Minolta SLR that weighed 415 grams. 

The end result would be a one piece kit weighing less than 1.5kg that could take amazing quality photos in nearly all situations.


----------



## wkosten (May 8, 2015)

I was surprised to read that the original 28-300 is actually a lens which not many people use.

Been using it for over 6 years now and moving from an 24-105 + 70-200 F4 combi to this lens was great despite the weight, in combination with my 5D2 (with batterypack) I think it weights over 3kg (but hey, in stormy weather the cam stays pretty steady).

Bought it second hand for 800 Euro's (not a bad bargain seen the normal price of about 2400 Euro) and use it almost on a daily basis for maritime photography.


----------



## Pixel (May 8, 2015)

If they can make it as optically good as the 70-200 II, I'm all over it. If not....


----------



## mnclayshooter (May 8, 2015)

Man, If I could get a relatively lighter wide+zoom all in one that still had pretty decent image quality - I'd snap one up.

Not having to pack-in several lenses in remote hiking/camping/biking or climbing adventures would be of real interest to me. 

Someone locally was selling a 28-300 on craigslist - I missed the sale, but I saw one pop up at a local store shortly after - my guess is they sold it to the store. I gave it a spin at the store with one of their bodies... seemed like a nice lens - a bit pricey and a bity heavy... but decent. Probably worth an update.


----------



## EOSDR (May 8, 2015)

I don't know about a DO, but, the 28-300 is my most used lens, and it gives me great results all the time. Yes, weight is a issue, and going by past trends, newer versions of the L lenses have for the most part come in lighter than their previous versions. 

I, for one, would pre-order in a heartbeat. Here's hoping the rumor has some substance to it.


----------



## TAF (May 8, 2015)

I would be much more interested in a 24-150 f2.8 IS L 

That would be the perfect replacement for my 24-105, and would become my primary lens if the optics were up to it.

I'd like f2.8 so it can make full use of all the focus cross points in the 5D3.

I thought about the 28-300, and declined due to the weight...so I ended up with the 24-105 and 70-300. And find I rarely use the 70-300 except when I want to be all the way out at 300. I would be better off with 24-150, and a separate 300 or 400...


----------



## TeT (May 8, 2015)

TAF said:


> I would be much more interested in a 24-150 f2.8 IS L
> 
> That would be the perfect replacement for my 24-105, and would become my primary lens if the optics were up to it.
> 
> ...



24 150 2.8 IS L would be a large lens...


----------



## dreamwood (May 9, 2015)

I agree with much that has been said here, but personally, if I had the money to spare, I would love to get one of these.

Pros:
• No matter if you're taking a walk, shooting a wedding, concert or wildlife - there are TONS of situations where you can't afford to change lenses (in a dusty desert I'd avoid changing no matter how much time I've got...)
• In situations where there is time, changing back and forth still breaks the flow of certain shooting situations
• For video, zoom range is even more important (esp. sports) - sometimes you need the range in one shot (say 50-100mm)
• In my humble opinion it's simply ridiculous to complain about the weight of 3.67lbs (also, add up the weight of the lenses you usually carry around instead) - unless you have asthma or something comparable
• APS-C with a "shorter" zoom doesn't really replace this (though it might work in many cases), as we all know the benefits of full frame - depth of field and low light capabilities (and in case of the 5Ds: monster resolution)

Cons/missing in the current 28-300:
• f2.8 is my favourite in many situations. I would wish for a 2.8-4.x version - no matter how heavy!
• While I rarely need 300mm (you can extend or even crop if it has to be that kind of close-up), there are situations (like narrow streets) where more "low end" is required. I think 24mm would be a decent starting point on a full frame body...


----------



## veryfelina (May 9, 2015)

Well, I do!!! 
Lately I've been looking up superzooms' specs but Canon EF 28-300mm is quite a monster and Tamron 28-300mm has poor IQ (great reviews all things considered but when it comes down to IQ, it always gets 3 out of 5).
I know superzooms aren't (and can't) be as good as zooms, let alone primes (I'm talking about IQ).
But being a mother of 3 often makes me wish for a superzoom, so I can get everything without carrying 2 or 3 lenses and having to keep changing them. This goes for travelling as well.
But I'm not ready to compromise too much IQ.
If Canon managed to put together a 24-300mm L lens with good IQ, wide apertures and a reasonable weight, I would be willing to pay for it. Maybe up to 2000/2500€.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 9, 2015)

Here are a couple of images from my 35-350 and my 28-300. AF was fast and accurate on both.

35-350






28-300 (100% crop)


----------



## GDPhoto (May 9, 2015)

I own the Canon 28-300 L lens, thought it would make a great back-up lens for shooting weddings .... or maybe if I had to travel with just one lens. Never use it, period. The weight isn't bad considering the focal range you get. But - I've taken less than 100 images with the lens and I'm so unimpressed with the image quality that I consider it a last resort lens. 

I agree with a previous post: it's such a dust pump that there is no benefit to keeping it on your camera body vs using several lenses and swapping them.


----------



## Zoom-In (May 9, 2015)

I had 35-350 mm from the beginning - a great lens for paper news and sports
I got Tamron 28-200 mm; 28-300 mm, 18-270 mm, 16-300 mm - they are all not really good ad the long end and not so good for indoors - they only deliver in sunny weather or with tripod-use.
My friend uses the 28-300 mm L IS - it is to heavy and to long.

A 5,6/24-240 mm may be nice - but not really what we need.
I would love to have a *4,0/50-300 mm L IS and a 2,0/35-120 mm L *for Portrait-Work.

And maybe the 5,6/35-350 mm L IS should have a comeback in a lighter body.


----------



## lol (May 9, 2015)

I think I'd like to see a similar lens to the 28-300L but not as a direct replacement. The cost is rather hard to swallow and would be even less so with the inevitable increase a new version would come with, so I'd like a still good quality non-L version, comparable to the IS STM lenses available.

Weight of the 28-300L I don't think is a problem for the build of the lens, as it is similar size and only slightly heavier than the 100-400L mk1. I also had the predecessor 35-350L which I bought used, but had to return as it was so old it had mechanical problems. Optically it wasn't leading class but certainly still "good enough". If anything, I'd prefer a bias towards the longer end like the 35-350L, rather than give up the long end if they make it start wider. Extending the zoom range to something like 24-300 would be fine too


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (May 9, 2015)

The market for superzoom lenses is mostly travel and I wouldn't see myself carrying this beast for long. 
I rather buy the tamron version that only weights 540g. Nikon users can get their 28-300mm that only weights 800g and offers great IQ, obviously for superzoom standards.
They need to make it smaller for consumers, professionals don't get superzoom lenses because they prefer better IQ.


----------



## Phil Lowe (May 9, 2015)

I have the latest iteration of the Tamron 28-300. Aside from pretty bad CA in high contrast back lit scenes, it's a great all-purpose lens. I especially like - and have used - this lens for shooting HD video with my DSLRs (5D3 and 7D). Before getting the previous version of this lens, I was constantly having to swap out my 24-105L and 100-400L for video work. The 28-300 is a great range for video shooters, and the VC (vibration compensation) on the Tamron is great for shoulder-mounted video shooting.

So yes, if Canon can produce a 28-300 lens with better IQ, lower weight, and lower cost in this zoom range than its current lens, they should do so. Lots of people are buying Tamrons (16-300 & 28-300) because Canon's super zoom is just too expensive given its competition.

IMHO.


----------



## Moulyneau (May 9, 2015)

EOSDR said:


> I don't know about a DO, but, the 28-300 is my most used lens, and it gives me great results all the time. Yes, weight is a issue, and going by past trends, newer versions of the L lenses have for the most part come in lighter than their previous versions.
> 
> I, for one, would pre-order in a heartbeat. Here's hoping the rumor has some substance to it.



Given what Canon have done with the new 400DO, we could expect the best from a new 24-300 using that tech. This with their new lens design, they could cut like 20% weight from the existing model. 

This is also where a serious SL2 comes in play for me (yes, again...). For travel/trekking, that baby together with a bigger body and a fast prime, I'm totally sold! So much so that I'm starting to save right now for the 2500+ bucks it will probably cost - no NY steak for me tonite, only instant noodles...


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 9, 2015)

Moulyneau said:


> ...no NY steak for me tonite, only instant noodles...



A recent study showed that eating those styrofoam noodle cups twice a week is worse for your health than eating at McDonalds every night. 

On the other hand, exercise is good for your health, so you could consider buying a heavy lens as expensive fitness equipment.


----------



## Stparrot (May 9, 2015)

I love this lens for my outdoor wandering and shooting! I have never analyzed it for specific quality issues as I'm sure some have but I have found having one lens attached to my Canon and not having to carry or switch around while on the move is worth every dollar and ounce. I have many lenses and use most of them dependant on specific situations but for general wandering and traveling it can not be beat. Is it expensive - yes! It is heavy - yes! Does it work - double yes! Can it be improved upon - yes ... tell me when the new one is out and I'll snap it up in a heartbeat!


----------



## Moulyneau (May 9, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Moulyneau said:
> 
> 
> > ...no NY steak for me tonite, only instant noodles...
> ...



Yes, edible but non-digestible wax! I'll just transfer in a porcelain bowl and eat with wooden chopsticks. Canon therefore, can speed up the design of a lighter 24-300


----------



## riker (May 9, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> I think what's wrong with this lens is that it's just too big for most people
> 
> I find that I use a range of 24-200 a lot more than 201-300, and when I do need the longer range, I generally plan for it with 400mm available.
> 
> In my view, a compact but high-performing 24-200/4-5.6L IS would be a pretty interesting lens.



Soooo AGREE! That's exactly what I wanted to say. A superzoom lens is for travel or any other situation where you don't want to have many lenses and also weight and size is an issue, so you want to solve as much as you can with 1 lens. And focal lens above 200mm is very rarely needed in these situations.
A lens starting at 20-24mm and ending at 150-200mm is what we need.
My current travel setup is (5Dmk3) 16-35/2.8, 50/1.4, 70-200/4. I will buy anything that makes this setup lighter/smaller/simpler while maintaining about the same performance.
I'm dreaming 16/5.6 pencace, new 50/1.4, 24-200/4.

(Actualy I think the 24-105 should really be a 24-120 even though it would not meet my above needs.)


----------



## degos (May 9, 2015)

riker said:


> And focal lens above 200mm is very rarely needed in these situations.



So many travel superzooms go well towards 300mm that I'm sure their research showed that 200mm is too short for an upper limit.

For example, 200mm is useless for an interesting bird that lands 20 ft away. Or for features on top of a building, from street level.

It's also far too short for casual use at an airshow, or for cars on a racing track; both events that tourists might visit. 300mm is the bare minimum for those and even then is lacking.


----------



## Lee Jay (May 9, 2015)

degos said:


> So many travel superzooms go well towards 300mm that I'm sure their research showed that 200mm is too short for an upper limit.



The 18-135 is effectively 29-216.



> For example, 200mm is useless for an interesting bird that lands 20 ft away.



No it's not. This was taken with a 200mm lens on a full-frame camera, at 165mm, from well over 20 feet away. This was at a bird show under cover on a dark, dreary day and I needed f/2.8 so I left the TCs off the 70-200.










> Or for features on top of a building, from street level.
> 
> It's also far too short for casual use at an airshow, or for cars on a racing track; both events that tourists might visit. 300mm is the bare minimum for those and even then is lacking.



This shot was taken at 200mm on a 20D which has the same pixel density as a 5D II and thus could also have been taken on that camera with cropping in post, instead of by the sensor.


----------



## skyoctane (May 10, 2015)

I owe one of these beasts. It was always my dream lens when I was shooting film purely because of the convenience of the zoom range. I bought a really nice one on ebay for $1500 a few years ago. Yep, this lens is old, it's heavy, cumbersome, the push-pull isn't smooth (when there's a hint of zoom-creep tension), it's costly but IMOO it's awesome! The zoom range is surprisingly sharp for a super-zoom of it's vintage, the min. focus distance of 70cm is a treat and the bokeh, of all things, it's lovely. 
I love it for shooting speedway motorsports because you can quickly go from very wide to a detailed crop in one pull. no need to fumble two bodies. I love zoom burst effects and this lens lends itself to those shots like no other.
As a travel lens, it's heavy and intimidating so I would definitely welcome a lighter upgrade.
Perhaps I got lucky with a sharp copy but I do think this lens is under-rated.


----------



## AllGold (May 10, 2015)

I would be happy if Canon just brought back the 35-350L (although I probably wouldn't be happy with the price tag ). The 35-350 is sharper at 350mm than the 28-300 is at 300mm. I also think 35-350 is a more useful focal length. Then again I'm not looking at this from the standpoint of a lightweight travel lens.

Of course, everyone has their own preferences. For me, a 50-350 would be fine, too. The 100-400II is a terrific lens, but I'd want something a little wider on the short end, although it doesn't need to actually be a wide angle like a 28mm. 50mm is good for me. For a lens with a 100mm minimum, I'd prefer it if the new 100-400 was actually 100-500.

Like I said, everyone has their own preferences; those are mine.


----------



## SloPhoto (May 11, 2015)

Great Raptor shot!!

Re: the lens question, after starting to work with the new 100-400 II, I am really interested in seeing what Canon can bring to the field with this rumor. If it had the IQ, IS and build quality of the 100-400 II, I think it could be a great lens, even without the premier wide aperture that everyone drools over. 

A 2.8 over the whole range seems highly implausible - but a variable wouldn't be a deal killer in my opinion.




Lee Jay said:


> degos said:
> 
> 
> > So many travel superzooms go well towards 300mm that I'm sure their research showed that 200mm is too short for an upper limit.
> ...


----------



## overclock (May 11, 2015)

I love my 28-300. I got it on a great sale from the Canon refurb website. The range is super awesome to have in one lens. The IQ on mine is good. I need to do the AMFA fine tuning still but that's true of all my lenses. 

I've seen the 28-300 being used in person only once. I asked the photog how she liked it and she said she loved it. After a couple of years I finally got one of my own. The only time it's been off my camera since is to switch to the 16-35 at the Grand Canyon.


----------



## dsut4392 (May 12, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> <p>Is an “L/DO” superzoom something photographers want? What would it take feature wise for you to purchase one of these. Is there a cost ceiling? <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=26293.0" target="_blank">Sound off in our forum</a>.</p>
> <p>Happy Friday.</p>



Yes, I would like an L superzoom, but it would have to be half the size and weight of the current monster. For a lens with outstanding IQ I would pay up to $2k. Regardless of the IQ and price, if the weight is more than about 900g (which is more than 1.5x the weight of the Tamron), count me out.

I want it for travel and hiking, to pair with the 16-35/4. The 24-240 some have suggested doesn't interest me - not wide enough to go without the 16-35, and not enough reach. I've tossed up getting the 70-300L instead of a super-zoom, and carrying 16-35/4, Sigma 50/1.4 EX, 70-300L. But the weight penalty keeps pulling me back to the Tamron 28-300 at least for the short term (for a 7 week holiday in Scandinavia) and re-evaluating later if Canon (or anyone else) releases a better quality equivalent.


----------



## LonelyBoy (May 12, 2015)

degos said:


> riker said:
> 
> 
> > And focal lens above 200mm is very rarely needed in these situations.
> ...



But see, I'd love a 24- (or 25-)200 to cover the same range as my 18-135 IS STM, only on FF (hopefully with, yes, a little extra on the wide end). For an airshow, or an auto race, bring a whole different lens. There is, I believe, room for a lens that can cover a bigger range than 24-105 without needing to go all the way to 300 (with all the cost, size, and weight that goes along with that). If you need to cover truly that full range, you can pair it with a 70-300 or 100-400. That's still cheaper and smaller than the "quality" set of 24-70ii, 70-200ii, and something longer.


----------



## riker (May 13, 2015)

degos said:


> riker said:
> 
> 
> > And focal lens above 200mm is very rarely needed in these situations.
> ...



I'm not talking about the "needs" of tourists, shooting shitty images of some bird landing far away, shooting cars from where they sit, etc. For them, there are the compact superzooms, EF-S lenses or whatever. They are not the market for EF/L lenses even if they sometimes happen to buy them.
Also, an airshow, a bird, etc are still just some particular situations - sometimes it might be nice to have something above 200mm, but these are still the minority of the situations. And you can also easily crop and still have nice resolution when you have 20+ MP.

So I'm pretty confident when I'm saying I very rarely need a lens above 200mm for travel photography which I do for many years now. I also tend to think this is not just my opinion but most professionals agree. (By the way it's not a random coincidence that compacts like the S series and G series which are meant for prosumers/professionals do not have long zooms.)


----------



## dsut4392 (May 14, 2015)

riker said:


> degos said:
> 
> 
> > riker said:
> ...



Not a flame against you riker, but I don't understand the attitude that 'anyone that isn't a pro doesn't care about image quality', and 'anyone that _is_ a pro doesn't care how big or heavy a lens is'. 

As for "they are not the market for EF/L lenses even if they happen to buy them", take a look around your local tourist hotspot and count the number of 5D/6D bodies with attached 24-70/4 or 24-105/4 around 'prosumer' necks vs the number of pros and think that one through again. 

Prosumers/pros don't use superzooms, let alone compacts with long zooms, because most of them make lousy images. That's a self-fulfilling prophecy, not a decision by the market that it doesn't want a _good_ superzoom. 

While improvements on a compact are certainly limited by the small f-stops of a zoom in that form factor, there is potential for improvement (IMO) in the area of superzooms for full-frame, and I believe they could sell. Is it so wrong to want a superzoom with good optical performance, that doesn't weigh 1.67kg?


----------



## dsut4392 (May 15, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Canon and Nikon have been selling "kits" with a standard zoom (from 20-something to around 80) and telephoto zoom (around 70 to 300) for longer than digital cameras have been around.
> 
> ...
> 
> Be aware that the IQ in more recent superzooms is improving to the point of the image being sensor quality limited, not lens limited.



I got my first SLR (at age 10) when the standard options were a 50/1.8 or 50/1.4, and cut my teeth shooting KR64. I remember when [self styled] pros on usenet forums would scoff at any 'pro' ever shooting anything but a prime... And for my money, digital didn't cut it on a price/ IQ performance ratio until the 350D, and I still shot Provia for many things until 2007 when processing options started drying up locally.

So yeah, I agree things have changed a lot in the camera world. I wouldn't go quite so far as saying superzooms are approaching being sensor-limited (especially in the corners at the long and short ends), but I do agree that the (unfortunately very limited) evidence suggests they are becoming a 'good enough' compromise. A proper review in a controlled setup (e.g. DXOmark, or lensrentals) or even a direct comparison between the Tamron 'plastic fantastic' and the 28-300L would be interesting to see...


----------



## RGF (May 26, 2015)

entoman said:


> Surely the whole idea of a superzoom is to be a hand-holdable, portable lens, that can be more or less permanently attached, replacing a bagful of primes, and with a reasonable price?
> 
> I can't think of any type of photographer who would want this lens. Much much better to get 2 or 3 wide aperture primes, plus a long zoom for sports/action.



You are on Safari and some lions are walking toward the vehicle interacting. No time to change lens, just keep on shooting.

I had the 28-300 and had a love/hate battle with it. IQ was okay but not great.

On the long end, it was F5.6 and the 100-400 gave me extra reach and could safely couple with 1.4. Plus it weighted the same as the 100-400/70-200F2.8. One gave me extra reach, the other extra speed. the 28-300 gave me extra width.

I would like to see the replacement with longer end. I could give a bit on the wide end if necessary.


----------



## Don Haines (May 26, 2015)

Speaking as a hiker...... One super zoom lens beats carrying three separate zoom lenses..... Or 8 primes.....

When that bear runs across the trail or the eagle flies overhead, zooming the super zoom is far faster than swapping lenses......

When you really want the best IQ possible, nothing beats a prime.....

Which path you go down depends on your needs..... And different people will have different requirements, so instead of arguing, rejoice in having more choice... even if you don't want that particular lens. After all, who among us has EVERY lens that Canon sells?


----------



## mnclayshooter (Jun 1, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> Speaking as a hiker...... One super zoom lens beats carrying three separate zoom lenses..... Or 8 primes.....
> 
> When that bear runs across the trail or the eagle flies overhead, zooming the super zoom is far faster than swapping lenses......
> 
> ...



+1 carrying one lens to cover a wide-gamut of situations is a huge benefit to me... climbing a waterfall, hiking a mountain ridge or great lake shoreline trail, biking a prairieland highway... if I could get great (but note, not absolute best) IQ and wide-tele range out of one lens, I'd take it over a bag full of boat anchors with razor-sharpness any day for most of my photographic needs. If I could afford to own both, no doubt I would! Function vs funding seems to be a compelling reason for me to have interest in this lens.


----------



## johfot (Jun 6, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> An unknown source has told us that Canon is actively working to develop a superzoom to replace the EF 28-300 f/3.5-5.6L IS. This is a lens that is rarely spoken about and I can’t remember a time when I’ve actually seen one in use. It’s big and weighs a lot (3.67lbs) and <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/319784-USA/Canon_9322A002AA_28_300mm_f_3_5_5_6L_IS_USM.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">costs around $2500</a>.</p>
> <p>We were told that the goal of any such lens would be a significant weight reduction and to make the lens wider, possibly to 24mm. Is it possible that diffractive optics could cure the weight issue? Weight could be definitely be reduced, but I’d have a hard time believing cost would be.</p>
> <p>I wouldn’t normally post this sort of thing without digging a little further, but it might be a lens worth talking about. As some of you may know, I own a rental company and we do not stock the EF 28-300 f/3.5-5.6L IS, as I think we’ve have 1 or 2 requests for it in 4 years.</p>
> <p>Is an “L/DO” superzoom something photographers want? What would it take feature wise for you to purchase one of these. Is there a cost ceiling? <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=26293.0" target="_blank">Sound off in our forum</a>.</p>
> <p>Happy Friday.</p>



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)

RGF said:


> I had the 28-300 and had a love/hate battle with it. IQ was okay but not great.
> 
> On the long end, it was F5.6 and the 100-400 gave me extra reach and could safely couple with 1.4. Plus it weighted the same as the 100-400/70-200F2.8. One gave me extra reach, the other extra speed. the 28-300 gave me extra width.
> 
> I would like to see the replacement with longer end. I could give a bit on the wide end if necessary.



Why not look at the 35-350L then?


----------



## mrzero (Jun 18, 2015)

I ran across this review of the new Sony FE 24-240 and I was very jealous. Stabilized, full-frame superzoom for $1,000 at release, only a little bit larger than Canon's 24-105 f/4L. http://sonyalphalab.com/product-review/sony-fe-24-240mm-oss-lens-review-all-in-one-full-frame-coverage/

Look at its specs side by side with Canon's lenses. I'd say Canon should be able to come up with something in the same spirit. http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/side-by-side?products=sony_fe_24-240_3p5-6p3_oss&products=canon_24-105_4&products=canon_28-200_3p5-5p6_usm&products=canon_28-300_3p5-5p6_is&sortDir=ascending


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jun 18, 2015)

mrzero said:


> I ran across this review of the new Sony FE 24-240 and I was very jealous. Stabilized, full-frame superzoom for $1,000 at release, only a little bit larger than Canon's 24-105 f/4L. http://sonyalphalab.com/product-review/sony-fe-24-240mm-oss-lens-review-all-in-one-full-frame-coverage/
> 
> Look at its specs side by side with Canon's lenses. I'd say Canon should be able to come up with something in the same spirit. http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/side-by-side?products=sony_fe_24-240_3p5-6p3_oss&products=canon_24-105_4&products=canon_28-200_3p5-5p6_usm&products=canon_28-300_3p5-5p6_is&sortDir=ascending



I agree, jealous. Canon would insist on a 5.6 maximum aperture, and I have no idea how "piezo-electric" AF compares to ring-USM, but I do wish Canon would update the 28-200 with IS and ring-USM (and better optics), or upgrade the 28-300L the same way they did the similar-body 100-400L. I'd be on that like my cat on a seafood platter.


----------



## RGF (Jul 17, 2015)

LonelyBoy said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > I had the 28-300 and had a love/hate battle with it. IQ was okay but not great.
> ...


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jul 27, 2015)

I used a friend's Nikon APS-C body recently and the variable aperture kit lens annoyed the crap out of me. I don't like using auto/semi-auto metering modes so definitely would only be interested in fixed maximum aperture lenses.

While most of my lenses are f/2.8 or faster, I'd be willing to trade in trade in one stop of ISO performance for the convenience of a zoom and if it's a static subject then there's always the latest generation of kickass IS to make up for the loss of light-gathering capability.

In terms of focal range, if I can live with the angle of view of the 24mm pancake on APS-C then I can easily live with 28mm on the wide end and I love 70-200mm for portraits and reasonably close-by subjects. Anything further away either gets treated as a snapshot (only for ID purposes) or needs a dedicated lens for it to be a keeper.

So summarizing, I'd say 28-200mm f/4 IS USM would be great walk-around lens from my perspective. I'd much rather have a brilliant 200/4 than a mediocre 300mm f/5.6.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jul 27, 2015)

StudentOfLight said:


> I used a friend's Nikon APS-C body recently and the variable aperture kit lens annoyed the crap out of me. I don't like using auto/semi-auto metering modes so definitely would only be interested in fixed maximum aperture lenses.
> 
> While most of my lenses are f/2.8 or faster, I'd be willing to trade in trade in one stop of ISO performance for the convenience of a zoom and if it's a static subject then there's always the latest generation of kickass IS to make up for the loss of light-gathering capability.
> 
> ...



Why not just set the aperture to 5.6 instead of 3.5, so it stays constant? I'd be intrigued by your 28-200/4 though. Better yet, 25-200/4.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jul 28, 2015)

LonelyBoy said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > I used a friend's Nikon APS-C body recently and the variable aperture kit lens annoyed the crap out of me. I don't like using auto/semi-auto metering modes so definitely would only be interested in fixed maximum aperture lenses.
> ...


I was shooting with an older generation APS-C sensor and in dimly lit conditions was a huge disadvantage. Outdoors is fine to shoot f/5.6 but indoors when you can hardly get a usable image at ISO 1600 ... (who am I kidding none of those images were usable.) Also the flash was malfunctioning so I had to shoot ambient only. Brings me to tears :'( Anyway, I eventually just resigned myself to shoot at 18mm f/3.5 indoors.


----------

