# Opinions on the EF 28-300L



## Cropper (Feb 13, 2011)

The EF 28-300L, even though big and heavy, seems to me as it could actually be a good option for a travel lens, if coupled with a wide angle.
A whole lot of range could be covered with just two lenses, allowing to keep it simple.

However I have never tried it personally, neither do I know anybody who has. The reviews I've read are somewhat contradictory, so basically I'm quite clueless as if it's actually worth considering.
For some reason it doesn't seem to be a very popular lens. Could it be the size, price, push pull design, lack of optical quality ? 

Does anybody have one or at least tried it out ? What do you think about it ?

As always, your help is very much appreciated.


----------



## Admin US West (Feb 13, 2011)

Like you said, very big and heavy. People usually are looking for something convenient to carry for travel. It was said to be targeted at photo journalists, where they may need a long zoom or a wide angle very quickly. It might also make them a target at protests, where one side or the other will think the press is against them.

It might also tell a thief that here is a person who has valuable equipment.

In some countries, they do not let you take professional cameras into events without a press permit, while they ignore consumer cameras.

So, I'd rather not walk around with one in Kuwait where photographing a person without permission can bring you a fine, or even looking like you might do something they don't like could bring down the law on you.


----------



## lol (Feb 13, 2011)

I think the biggest points stopping it from selling more are the price, the cost, and did I mention the price? If it was close to say the 100-400L I'd consider it seriously, and think many more would too.

While I haven't used the 28-300L myself, I have used its predecessor 35-350L and the similar build style 100-400L. I think it makes sense where you need the zoom range in a single lens, with the physical aspects down to user preferences and the job at hand. The 35-350 I think performs great for a 10x zoom. It isn't up to the 100-400 for example, but it is very close. And from reviews the 28-300 is at least comparable or better than the 35-350. If you want the ultimate in optical quality, of course you might look elsewhere, but convenience is often a tradeoff against quality.

Price aside, as a general travel lens I'd say the size and weight are downsides. It's bigger than the 100-400L on spec, and I don't like to carry that around unless I know I will be needing it. Other times, I use the 70-300DO mainly because it is that small. If you're on crop sensor, the Tamron 18-270 is another possibility, but it comes down to how small/few lenses you want to go. I have looked at the Tamron 28-300 in the past, which is much more affordable in comparison, but you get what you pay for and it simply isn't a high quality lens.


----------



## kubelik (Feb 13, 2011)

Cropper said:


> A whole lot of range could be covered with just two lenses, allowing to keep it simple.



a whole lot of range can be covered with the 24-70 and a 70-300. that whole pair adds up to only 300g more than the 28-300 alone.


----------



## Flake (Feb 13, 2011)

I have the 28 - 300mm IS L and yes it's heavy, although it's reasonably compact when at 28mm, and for me I need a monopod to support it (girlie).

Photozone gave it a recommended so it's quite good, distortion at the wide end is similar to the 24 - 105mm L and the IS system is the latest 4 stop type. Image quality is good enough to pass the strictest stock library QC. 

It's great when you don't know just what focal length you're going to need and the push pull zoom makes getting to where you need to be very very quick, I'm surprised more Journos don't use them instead of the 70 - 200mm and two bodies.

One job involved a steam engine comming towards me 300mm - 28 meant loads of images & the quick zooming made framing easy. It focusses really close and with a +4 filter (or +10) it'll even do a passable macro!

It's also good when you are in a country where you can't change lenses such as the desert types.

If it wasn't so damn heavy & high profile it could be the only lens you'd need


----------



## S P (Feb 13, 2011)

I'd really like to see Canon come out with a new version of this lens. Nikon's new 28-300VR lens is quite impressive, and half the size and weight and price. I haven't handled either lens, but I'm of the belief that you get what you pay for and that the Canon lens is probably a lot better built, weather sealed, and maybe even has better optics too. But sheesh, 1670g is a lotta lens to want to lug around.

Obviously Canon targeted this lens towards the pros who needed an ultra-tough do anything type lens for any condition, and Nikon targeted theirs towards prosumers who wanted an '18-200mm DX' equivalent lens for their new full-frame D700's. So different lenses for different target markets, I guess.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 14, 2011)

Flake said:


> the IS system is the latest 4 stop type.



Nope, it's got the 3-stop IS similar to the 24-105mm, not the newest 4-stop IS found in the 70-200mm II, for example.



Flake said:


> I'm surprised more Journos don't use them instead of the 70 - 200mm and two bodies.



Could be they want f/2.8 throughout the range.


----------



## gbaturin (Feb 14, 2011)

While I haven't used the lens myself, I've read enough about it (and similar lenses) to give this one a RENTAL =) Seriously, any lens, and I mean ANY lens with such a large zoom factor will be about quantity over quality. There's no physically possible way for a lens with a 10x zoom to be super sharp and dimensionally accurate at all (or even any, as often happens) focal lengths. Just look at the Canon 18-200... Yeah, it's a lot cheaper and all that, but the 28-300 will also give you distrortion across the board, and won't be crisp at the default aperture...
Another downside is the push-pull design. No, really, the best lenses Canon makes are either non-zoomers (obviously), or lenses that are completely sealed and don't extend, such as the 70-200 series. Any lens that extends and retracts on a constant basis will be more prone to physical damage, as well as sucking up dust, etc, and don't let the BIG L fool you.
I'd choose any 70-200 over the 28-300 any day. If you really need all the zoom lengths at your disposal at all times, just get a second body with a wide angle lens. 
The 28-300 just isn't worth the money, IMHO.


----------



## Joes Dad (Feb 15, 2011)

I have owned the 28-300 lens for about 3 years and I am still on the fence with it. The pro (and in my mind, it is the only pro) is that the lens is amazingly versitle. I recently visited Hong Kong for the weekend and only had my briefcase to carry gear, so I brought the body with the 28-300 and the 16-35. I had everything I needed. I don't really have any complaints about its sharpness, but I shouldn't given the price.

All of that said, the lens is very, very heavy. As sharp as it is, obviously other Canon glass is sharper and faster. Thus, I usually don't reach for this lens and instead travel with 3 or 4 faster lenses.


----------



## Cropper (Feb 15, 2011)

Thanks guys for sharing your thoughts and your experiences with this lens.

I have decided to skip this one, especially considering that I lacked a good fast prime on my setup.

Since my bad case of "redring fever" wouldnÂ´t quiet down, I have just ordered the 85L ! ;D

Acording to the DoctorÂ´s prescription it should relieve the symptoms temporarily, alt least until a new 100-400 II comes along.

Cheers.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 15, 2011)

Cropper said:


> Acording to the DoctorÂ´s prescription it should relieve the symptoms temporarily, a



Like any other addiction, you'll find that you need bigger and bigger 'treatments' to satisfy your craving, and you'll need them more frequently, too. Welcome to L disease...


----------



## kubelik (Feb 15, 2011)

Cropper said:


> Since my bad case of "redring fever" wouldnÂ´t quiet down, I have just ordered the 85L ! ;D



good choice ... it's a difficult sickness that often relapses just when you thought you'd had it kicked, so beware!


----------



## ronderick (Feb 16, 2011)

Cropper said:


> Since my bad case of "redring fever" wouldnÂ´t quiet down, I have just ordered the 85L ! ;D
> 
> Acording to the DoctorÂ´s prescription it should relieve the symptoms temporarily, alt least until a new 100-400 II comes along.



Pray that you don't get hooked on the primes... otherwise, you'll be reaching for the 24L, 35L, 50L, 135L... and more...

Too bad there's no rehab center for this illness :


----------



## Flake (Feb 16, 2011)

It's a heck of a difference to go from a superzoom to a single focal length! I hope you have a 5D MkII for this lens, and you take a lot of portraits? This is a lens I've looked at & avoided, I just cannot justify four figures for a lens which really only has one use. It's very good at the specialist niche it was designed for, but the 85mm f/1.8 is also a great lens albeit a stop slower. 

If this is the only L lens in your bag, then I have to say I think you've made a mistake, I'd have gone for the 70 - 200mm f/2.8 MkII IS L as one of the trinity of essential lenses a photographer should own.

If you do want to use this lens for it's wide aperture outdoors (and that's the real reason you buy a fast prime) then you will also need an ND filter preferably a variable one as it will quickly max out the shutter speed and be unuseable.


----------



## Canon 14-24 (Feb 16, 2011)

Just be prepared that the 85L isn't a light lens either. Feels like a grapefruit in your hand and I used it for an event once and got arm fatigue after a hour or so. As Flake mentioned above, it really feels like a specialist niche kind of lens that was meant more for still portraits.


----------



## LuCoOc (Feb 16, 2011)

Flake said:


> If this is the only L lens in your bag, then I have to say I think you've made a mistake, I'd have gone for the 70 - 200mm f/2.8 MkII IS L as one of the trinity of essential lenses a photographer should own.



What are the other two lenses of that trinity? 24-70 and 16-35? ;D


----------



## Flake (Feb 16, 2011)

LuCoOc said:


> Flake said:
> 
> 
> > If this is the only L lens in your bag, then I have to say I think you've made a mistake, I'd have gone for the 70 - 200mm f/2.8 MkII IS L as one of the trinity of essential lenses a photographer should own.
> ...



That's about it ! A wide angle; A standard zoom; and A telephoto zoom. For me I'd say these three need to be the best quality because normally they'll get the most work. After that it depends on the photographer perhaps a 50mm fast prime, or a 100mm macro what ever the technique demands.

There is another issue with the 85mm L and that's the speed of focus which is not quick at all. For the right application it's a wonderful lens, but I think I'd need to be shooting head & shoulders portraits all day long to justify the price.


----------



## Cropper (Feb 16, 2011)

The 85L isn't my first L. 
I currently have the EF-S 10-22, the 24-105L and the 70-200L f4 IS (and the 1.4 extender), all which I use on the 7D. I also sometimes use a EF 50 f2.5 macro.

I do have many diferent areas of photography that interest me, however probably none as much as travel photography. In practical terms this ends up actually meaning at least landscape, street and portrait photography. 

This fact has probably steered me into trying to get a setup that is as simple and versatile as possible, so my priority so far has been zooms, and trying to cover as much range with as few high quality lenses as possible.
This fact prompted my interest in the 28-300L. 

However I did realize that for the money I was duplicating what I already have, and probably wouldnÂ´t be gaining too much either in simplicity (it would be a burden to carry that little monster around) or optical quality. Even though I probaby could cover more range with just two lenses, and avoided the need to change lenses so frequentlty. 

I therefore considered that getting something different, something that allowed me to get images that I cannot get with any of my current equipment would be more sensible. 
I also absolutely love portraiture and this is definitely an area that I want to explore more and more, within or without my travels. 

Besides that I think that the 85L can be useful in a lot of different aplications besides portraits (some great macro type imagens, indoors sports, shows, concerts, and several low light aplications). I don't really see it as such a small "niche" "portraits only" lens.

As far as shooting outdoors I do have several 77mm ND filters that can be adapted with a step up ring, so my main concern was that the 85L might be a little on the long side on the 7D, but in most ocasions I think I can probably compensate.
If not hey... there's always the 5D III... : 

Damn IÂ´m starting to feel that fever coming back already !!!!


----------

