Anyone used the Canon 28-300?

[Joel Slack]

I'm somewhat put off by it, because of the 3.5-5.6 minimum apertures, and because I have to wonder how sharp a zoom from wide to telephoto might be (having no experience with this kind of lens). I mean, it's an "L," so I assume it's no slouch, but is it mainly just for someone looking for that kind of versatility in one lens? Any word on performance? Am I just being stubborn? The 100-400 actually has a larger range of focal lengths, and it is a fine lens, but I can't get my head around this thing.

 

[Chuck Fry]

I haven't laid my hands on one, and I'm not likely to. The only reason I can see for such a lens on an SLR is if you are completely paranoid about changing lenses in the field. The largest range zoom lens I use on my cameras is a 28-135mm, roughly 5x, and that's only used as a "walking-around" lens when I'm shooting casually.

A 100-400mm zoom is only a 4x focal length range, and on a 35mm format that's all telephoto. 28-300 is about 11x and crosses over from wide angle to tele. There just have to be more compromises in the wider range zoom.

 

[Scott B. Hughes]

No paranoia here.... but I use a 28-300 on a 1Ds2 at ~100 events (weddings) a year. Not at the entire event, but typically a good third of my images come through this lens.

Prior to the 28-300, we used the 35-350. The extra on the wide end was a bonus but the IS is why I purchased the newer lens.

It's not the sharpest in Canon's lineup, it's big & heavy and terrible in low light, afterall, it is a f5.6 lens at all focal lengths beyond 60mm or so, but if one could have only one lens, this as versatile as they get.

My alternative approach is the two body shuffle with the 1Ds2 w/24-70 and a 1D2 w/80-200. That gives me a bit more wide and less on the long end, but I have to deal with two cameras/lens combos weighing 12-15lbs.

The intended use would be the decision maker. I wouldn't suggest this lens if interior usage is common. It is an "outdoor" lens because of the max aperture.

 

[Joel Slack]

Thanks for the insight, Scott. It would indeed be an extremely versatile option. Glad to know somebody is putting it to good use!

 

[torwinen]

I bought this lens less than year ago. Together with 5D it makes a great point and shoot I am using this combo whenever I take a camera with me while spending time with family (wife and boys aged 3 and 5) outdoors. Before this lens I was changing constantly between lenses and that was a bit of pita at least if you ask my wife Occasianally, I am also using primes outdoors to get thinner DOF. Indoors it is always primes.

This lens is a big compromise. Unless used at f8 or smaller up to 200mm and f11 or smaller 200-300mm you will see vignetting. Sharpness is not the best unless stopped down to values above. It is a slow lens especially if you want the best image quality out from it. It is a bit heavy and big. It draws unwanted attention from people (Although not so much as some bigger primes).

The pros are quite obvious: Versatile and convenient.

I might be buying additional fast (=f2.8) zoom lenses in the future but dont consider selling 28-300L.

Marko

 

[Joel Slack]

Plus if you don't have to change lenses all the time, you don't have to worry about cleaning the sensor. I can see the draw in certain situations, like the one you described.

 

[Scott B. Hughes]

Joel, because the lens is not removed helps keep the sensor clean, no doubt.

OTOH, dust can be 'pushed' in. This lens is a push/pull zoom which "exhales" out at the rear mount, into the light box. This can be demonstrated with the lens off camera.

Once mounted, perhaps the sealing of the body would prevent the air from entering the body.

Point is, it's not a sealed lens and dirt does enter the light box area. -Scott

 

[Joel Slack]

True. My 100-400 is an absolute dust pump. (But still a fine lens)

 

[Dawid Loubser]

Clarification of "Sealed"

Point is, it's not a sealed lens and dirt does enter the light box area.

Although it's true that this lens is not "sealed" from the point of view in that it does not push air or dust into the camera's mirror box, this lens is however *very thoroughly* weather sealed from the outside elements, unlike the 100-400.

I think the ideal usage of this lens is to, together with a 1-series body, form sealed combination that (assuming sufficient light, or high-ISO shooting) does not require lens changes. This is exactly how I use the combination, and I can attest that it is very, very airtight.

I always wondered how a push-pull design could at all be "airtight" (since it slides so easily), but I assure you that it is - last week I had to use a loan 1D Mk II N, and the rubber cover over the remote / flash socket is missing - so there is a small (~1mm) hole where the rubber "door" hinges off. If I push/pull the 28-300L, it very obviously blows or suck air through this tiny hole on the side of the body (and push/pull is easier than on my camera, i.e. no back-pressure). To force air through this tiny hole (instead of somewhere on the large push/pull sliding mechanism) really shows me that it is very well sealed indeed.

Again, assuming you're not shooting very low-light, this lens on a 1-series instills me with great confidence that I can get almost any shot, anywhere. I've never drenched it, but I have exposed it to terribly high (salty) humidity for long periods at a time with no ill effects, because I treat the whole thing as a sealed unit.

These aspects, to me, make up for the optical performance - although, this lens can be surprisingly good. I think people exaggerate the "compromises" a bit, I find it generally excellent. It's plenty sharp, and the two biggest "compromises" are the light falloff (vignetting - which I find only becomes a problem on shots with uninteresting background, e.g. sky) and the slowness.

And it really is versatile - these were all taken with it:
http://ic1.deviantart.com/fs15/f/2006/362/2/2/Inflatable_S33_by_philosomatographer.jpg
http://fc01.deviantart.com/fs14/f/2007/035/0/c/Pink_and_Green_by_philosomatographer.jpg
http://fc01.deviantart.com/fs13/f/2007/071/7/5/Miniature_Sovereignty_by_philosomatographer.jpg

 

[Asher Kelman]

How about adding another smaller digicam for wider angle?

Wedding photographers may have 2 cameras routine on their shoulders and some 3!!

I have switched between 50mm and 70-200 at fashion shows and hate it!

I really should take 2 cameras, a 5D with a 24-105 IS and a 1DII with a 70-200 2.8 IS with a x1.4 converter. However, thats' heavy!

I wish the Canon 28-300 L was faster as I try not to use flash a lot of the time. I don't like the idea of vignetting at all!

Are there great sigma lenses at htis range which outclass Canon?

Asher

 

[Dawid Loubser]

Are there great sigma lenses at htis range which outclass Canon?

To my knowledge (correct me if I'm wrong) Sigma has only one 28-300, and that's the "Sigma 28-300 f3.5-6.3 MACRO ASP DG". Then, they also have a 28-200, the "Sigma 28-200mm f3.5-5.6 HZ DG".

Either of these cost just a little over a tenth of the Canon 28-300L, they are both very small and light. However, as far as I know, they don't touch the Canon's optical quality, not to mention the build quality. I also think they each have around half of the Canon's 22 internal glass elements, and are not nearly as corrected or flare-resistant.

 

[Asher Kelman]

To my knowledge (correct me if I'm wrong) Sigma has only one 28-300, and that's the "Sigma 28-300 f3.5-6.3 MACRO ASP DG". Then, they also have a 28-200, the "Sigma 28-200mm f3.5-5.6 HZ DG".

Either of these cost just a little over a tenth of the Canon 28-300L, they are both very small and light. However, as far as I know, they don't touch the Canon's optical quality, not to mention the build quality. I also think they each have around half of the Canon's 22 internal glass elements, and are not nearly as corrected or flare-resistant.

Well then Dawid,

We need sample files! If there's anyone who uses these lenses, speak up! Bigma users praise them!

Who has any of these Sigma lenses? I think we might be overlooking gems but I of course am only working on the idea that we perhaps disrespect the 3rd party lenses routinely.

Asher

 

[Deleted member 55]

Pure and simple it is a paparazzi lens!

The EF 28-300-mm f3.5-5.6L IS is an outstanding lens for what it was designed for, shooting people in a crowd at 3 feet and then 100 feet 2 seconds later, Inside or out, day or night, with flash and IS this is not a problem when shooting waist up fill the frame people shots.

A 550EX or 580EX is more than enough flash at the distances required for "waist up fill the frame people shots" even at the 300-mm end.

This lens was never intended to crop 17MP down to 3MP But even at .5MP no one is going to notice at 75 DPI on the front page of the New York Times.

If you really need sharp you buy the EF 300-mm f2.8L IS, the sharpest lens Canon makes!

I ordered one the day it was announced.

28-300 at 300-mm

200-mm

135-mm

28-mm

Santa Barbara MRS. Bridges book signing 02-12-2005.

 

[Dawid Loubser]

I of course am only working on the idea that we perhaps disrespect the 3rd party lenses routinely.

Asher, I can't disagree that we do often disrespect third-party lenses out of hand. Though I unfortunately don't have sample files, I am however talking from my own experience. I have tried the Sigma 28-300 on a few occasions (e.g. in a shop, just to see what it was like) and there is a massive difference in build quality, it was substantially darker in the viewfinder, and if pointed to bright light sources, had quite a bit more flaring.

I'm not sure if it's just me, but I find the 28-300 to be fantastically flare-resistant. Though it does have some CA wide open, I often use it in very harsh lighting conditions, and it performs brilliantly. As an example, this image is taken wide open right into direct sunlight scattered through a tree in the background. Instead of creating several internal reflections (secondary flares) like some of my other lenses, it simply turns the sunlight into pretty bokeh: (this is an out-of-camera JPG from a 350D, before I shot RAW/1D)

P.S. The 28-300 is the worst possible lens you can put on a 350D But it's great on a 1D.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Dawid,

I never said "often" or "out of hand" just "perhaps disrespect routinely". Still I'm disappointed because Sigma for sure has the skills to bring out a first class alternative. I guess the market is not great enough for them to bother.

Asher

 

[Dawid Loubser]

I never said "often" or "out of hand" just "perhaps disrespect routinely".

Asher, I'm actually agreeing with you ("I can't disagree") and maybe even taking it a bit further - because I do in fact think that "non-canon" lenses are often disregarded. It is a shame, since Sigma definitely does have the skill and ability to make interesting lenses.

But I do think they have a long, long way to go to equal Canon's lineup...