Canon EF 28-300 mm

[Brett Allen]

I'm on the verge of buying a Canon EF 28-300 mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM. Does anyone have one? The weight doesn't bother me just the image quality on my 5D MIII

 

[Derrel]

It is an L-series superzoom. What do the reviews, in general, say?

 

[Brett Allen]

It is an L-series superzoom. What do the reviews, in general, say?

I take the "professional" reviews with a fist full of salt. Good reviews biggest issue is the weight and it is a little slow. But for outdoors it should be fine. Sick of flicking between my 70-300mm and wider lens

 

[Derrel]

I have owned a few wide-ratio zooms over the years. This 28 mm to 300mm represents basically covers eight popular lens lengths, from 28mm to 300mm, Meaning it could cover almost any good light situation outdoors, or indoors with flash. How much would the equivalent eight lenses weight? A 300mm f/5.6 is workable, especially with image stabilization.

 

[Brett Allen]

I have owned a few wide-ratio zooms over the years. This 28 mm to 300 mit represents basically covers eight popular lens lengths, from 28mm to 300mm, Meaning it could cover almost any good light situation outdoors, or indoors with flash. How much would the equivalent eight lenses weight? A 300mm f/5.6 is workable, especially with image stabilization.

I'll be getting a new monopod as well, who needs the gym!

 

[Derrel]

I just saw that for $112 you can rent the 28-300 L for seven days from lensrentals.com. A week's worth of actual, real world shooting would tell you a lot about the lens, and how will it and you get along. It's about an $1800 lens so spending $100 to avoid making a really big mistake seems like good insurance. Renting before buying makes perfect sense to me.

 

[Soocom1]

I have the predecessor the 35-350. The 28-300 lens is heavier and larger.

As someone with it attached to a 1Ds, I can wholly state that the weight factor is not to be taken lightly.

The overall picture quality is superb on the 35-350, so I can only assume that its progeny is probably much better.

I am shooting an 11 Mp FF in the 1Ds, and except for the age related issues that comes with, yep age, I would probably say that if you have the ability to get one and think you can handle the weight, go for it.

The 28 also has IS, the 35 does not.




Some main points however.
You must support the lens when using it, and if you let it stress the camera body, you can get lens-body errors. "Error - 01".

The typical advise is that if your not going to use it for a while, detach it from the camera and store it on end,

 

[Brett Allen]

I have the predecessor the 35-350. The 28-300 lens is heavier and larger.

As someone with it attached to a 1Ds, I can wholly state that the weight factor is not to be taken lightly.

The overall picture quality is superb on the 35-350, so I can only assume that its progeny is probably much better.

I am shooting an 11 Mp FF in the 1Ds, and except for the age related issues that comes with, yep age, I would probably say that if you have the ability to get one and think you can handle the weight, go for it.

The 28 also has IS, the 35 does not.

Some main points however.
You must support the lens when using it, and if you let it stress the camera body, you can get lens-body errors. "Error - 01".

The typical advise is that if your not going to use it for a while, detach it from the camera and store it on end,

Thanks - I already have to support the 70-300, this has significantly more weight. Thanks for the feedback.