Hyperzooms ??

[Paul_O]

Being a new 300D owner and fairly new to SLR's altogether, I'm looking for a lens to get some more reach. I do a fair bit of travel and try to be as inconspicuous as possible (no BG-E1 or white lenses !), and am considering amongst other things the range of 28-300 zooms. I've read a few reviews and from what I've seen people either love 'em or hate 'em but haven't found any side to side comparisons with other lenses. Do any of you have any experience with them and if so what was the verdict. If the verdict is a definite 'against' could anyone recommend a 'budget' series zoom up to 300mm ?

I look forward to your feedback

Paul

[Andy_T]

Paul,

on this forum, you won't find many people loving them.

Otherwise, I can't contradict your statement. :roll:

Best regards,
Andy

[Jesper]

Here is an overview that will give you some idea about Canon's lenses: Canon EOS Beginners’ FAQ, Part III - Lenses (http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html).

Almost (?) all cheap superzoom lenses are not really high quality lenses. If you want an OK lens, the Canon EF 75-300 IS is probably already a lot better than a cheap 28-300 superzoom.

I recently bought the Canon EF 70-300 DO IS USM, which is really good quality (close to the famous "L" lenses), but it is not cheap at all ($ 1,299). Here is a review of the 70-300 DO, with comparisons with the Canon 75-300 IS, a Tamron 28-300 superzoom and a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L: http://www.e-fotografija.com/artman/publish/article_306.shtml

On the example photos, you can clearly see that the Tamron is the worst lens. The 75-300 is a lot better, the 70-200 L is clearly the best one and the 70-300 DO is somewhere between the last two (but closer to the 70-200 L than the 75-300).

I guess you already have the Digital Rebel kit lens (EF-S 18-55)? If you're on a budget, I think you'd be better off getting the Canon 75-300 IS in addition to your Digital Rebel kit lens than getting a cheap 28-300 superzoom.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Jesper's new 70-300mm DO is definately the new king of "low profile" telephoto shooting!

[Cadwell]

OK... I'm going slightly off topic here so apologies to Paul_O but has anyone seen any reviews of the Canon EF 28-300mm F3.5-5.6 L IS USM? I mean, this thing is a hell of a price (Jessops are advertising it for £2,000+ - £800 more than the 100-400L). At that price it had better be the best telephoto zoom ever...

[Paul_O]

Jesper,
Thanks for the link it's a very interesting article and I'm sure it will prevent several of my future posts. The 70-300 DO IS USM looks great, especially considering the IS function. I'm not in a great hurry and won't be heading away for a big trip until the end of the year so have some time to save.
But thanks to all, I can definitely see the value in spending the money on lenses just because I'm not a Pro it doesn't mean I'd be happy with crappy photos. The more I think about it, I can definitely see a spot in my bag for the 70-300 DO IS. I noticed on Canon's Aust site that they haven't released it locally yet but will check it out, I'd imagine it's 20-30% more expensive than USA as is most of their gear.

thanks again for the replies

Paul

[RacerRik]

Paul,

If you can live with 200mm (remember that is equivalent to 320mm on your Rebel) you should check out the Sigma 55-200 DC. It is small, light weight, very inexpensive ($140) and it takes great photos. It is not as fast as the big glass (f4-5.6) but it is fast enough for most shots. You can take advantage of the Rebel's low noise and bump up the ISO to 400 and it helps to keep the shutter speeds in a reasonable range. As far as hand held shots, I think you will find 320mm to be a pretty good challenge. I can't imagine trying to hand hold 480mm!

This lens may sound too good to be true (that is what I thought) but it really turned out to be a nice lens. The reason it can work so well plus be so small and inexpensive is that it is optimized for the small sensor in your digital camera. This lens will not work for 35mm film. But it sounds like just what you are looking for!

[Belmondo]

I'll be able to offer an opinion of the 28-300L in a couple days. Mine is supposed to be delivered tomorrow.

[Tom W]

I'll be able to offer an opinion of the 28-300L in a couple days. Mine is supposed to be delivered tomorrow.

That would be an interesting review - My suspicions are that it is relatively similar to (or maybe a bit improved upon) the 35-350L zoom, and should be very suitable for situations where lens swapping is out of the question.

[Belmondo]

That would be an interesting review - My suspicions are that it is relatively similar to (or maybe a bit improved upon) the 35-350L zoom, and should be very suitable for situations where lens swapping is out of the question.

That's the main reason I bought it. The wide end of the 28-300 is now pretty good with the 1.3X crop of the Mk II, so I see this as a single lens I can use pretty much all day. This is not to say that I will always use it, but on those occasions when I'm creating memories instead of art, it should be more than adequate.

The price is hard to justify, especially in light of what they sold the 35-350 for, and even with the addition of IS, it's a lot of money for a push/pull zoom, but right now, it's the greatest versatility available in an 'L' quality lens.

[Tom W]

That would be an interesting review - My suspicions are that it is relatively similar to (or maybe a bit improved upon) the 35-350L zoom, and should be very suitable for situations where lens swapping is out of the question.

That's the main reason I bought it. The wide end of the 28-300 is now pretty good with the 1.3X crop of the Mk II, so I see this as a single lens I can use pretty much all day. This is not to say that I will always use it, but on those occasions when I'm creating memories instead of art, it should be more than adequate.

The price is hard to justify, especially in light of what they sold the 35-350 for, and even with the addition of IS, it's a lot of money for a push/pull zoom, but right now, it's the greatest versatility available in an 'L' quality lens.

Well, if the quality and handling is anything like the 100-400L, it should be a real winner. I suspect that the focal length was chosen with the 1.3X sensor in mind, though it would be useful on a 1.6X as well, especially if paired with a 17-40.

[Cadwell]

I'll be able to offer an opinion of the 28-300L in a couple days. Mine is supposed to be delivered tomorrow.

That'll be good to see... it's a lot of money and a little slow for much of what I do but I might stretch to it as a "walkaround" lens if the quality is good enough.... (it's a hell of a lot lighter than my Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 ) such temptation.

[Canuck]

Cadwell,
I'd be interested to see how the new one stacks agains thte big 'un.

[Cadwell]

Cadwell,
I'd be interested to see how the new one stacks against the big 'un.

Certainly. I would never consider it as a replacement for the Sigma... it's too slow but as an additional lens for a walk around the circuit on a sunny day... it could be pretty good. It would certainly save me having to carry a wider angle lens as well.

[SeanDempsey]

That site says:

"Canon sell a number of lenses in a special series they refer to as L for “luxury.” "

Ummm... doens't the L stand for Canon's Lotus glass?

[Jesper]

That site says:

"Canon sell a number of lenses in a special series they refer to as L for “luxury.” "

Ummm... doens't the L stand for Canon's Lotus glass?

Where did you hear that? I thought it stands for "Canon Loves to have your money". :lol:
What would "lotus glass" be?

[Belmondo]

And I always though 'L' stood for Lunatics.

The 28-300 arrived a little while ago. I stuck it on the Mk II, stepped out the back door, and took a couple perfunctory shots of the yellow flowers behind our pool. I'll upload them later with the caveat that these were basically nothing more than snapshots taken under decidedly less-than-controlled conditions.

Initial impressions are really very good. It's fast-focusing and very quiet, but that was to be expected. It's heavy. That, too, was no surprise. Image quality looks very good, but I'll reserve judgment on that until I can do some more comprehensive tests. The 10X+ zoom is wonderful to have. This should be a very competent lens in the right hands.

[CoolToolGuy]

That site says:

"Canon sell a number of lenses in a special series they refer to as L for “luxury.” "

Ummm... doens't the L stand for Canon's Lotus glass?

No, I think its 'Lotta Glass' :wink: :lol:

Have Fun,

[Cadwell]

That site says:

"Canon sell a number of lenses in a special series they refer to as L for “luxury.” "

Ummm... doens't the L stand for Canon's Lotus glass?

Lotus was always claimed to stand for Loads Of Trouble Usually Serious... at least as far as Lotus cars were concerned ;)

[ron chappel]

Thanks in advance for the demo Belmondo!
Could you at some time do some very controlled comparisons with another lens or two? :D

[Belmondo]

Thanks in advance for the demo Belmondo!
Could you at some time do some very controlled comparisons with another lens or two? :D

Sure. Anthing in particular you'd like to see me do?

[Tom W]

Sure. Anthing in particular you'd like to see me do?

Yes - backflips through a burning ring of fire, while shooting 200 mm 3 different ways. Or you can just compare the lens to others at various apertures and focal lengths.

But the fire thing would much more entertaining - does the wife do well with the 1D II yet? I'm looking forward to her post in the "share photos" section, under the heading "justaburningbelmondo". :)

[Belmondo]

I have been diligently hunting for hoops of sufficient diameter to allow my corpulent body to pass through. Sadly, only a hula hoop seems to have a large enough opening for me to have any hope at all of accomplishing the feat you are proposing.

Early tests seem to show a tendency of the hula hoops to melt when doused with flammable liquids and set afire.

I would be seriously burned in such an undertaking.

My wife says she’d like to photograph it.

She must have found the B&H invoice.

[ron chappel]

LOL

Um..actually i'm probably going overboard using the term 'very controlled'
basically just some shots comparing it to another better known lens at the same focal lengths/magnification/Fstops so we can get a rough idea where it stands
personally i'm most interested in 300mm performance but i'd be happy with anything :wink:

[Belmondo]

I have the 300 f/4.0L prime, the 100-400L, and the new lens (28-300). I could do a comparison of them at 300mm.

That might be fun.

[Jim_T]

I've got the Canon 100-400L and the Canon 100-300 f/4.5-5.6 USM

Image wise, the 100-300 is pretty close to the 100-400L.. My only complaint with the 100-300 is that it's prone to purple fringing.. This is common in scenes with bright highlighs and reflections.. Like points of sunlinght glinting off chrome..

I think the 100-300 is a decent budget long zoom.. As a matter of fact, if the lens didn't display purple fringing, I probably wouldn't have picked up the 100-400L

I kept the 100-300 for when I don't want to carry the big 100-400... I also use a Canon 500D close up adapter on it which makes the 100-300 into a pretty good poor man's macro lens.

[ron chappel]

Ouch :P that poor hyperzoom will be cutting it's wrists as soon as it sees the 300/4L lol
but do them all anyway if you can....the 300/4 is actually a good baseline example as you can't really get much better glass anywhere

[Paul_O]

I've recently made some enquiries on the 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM, how does this rate as a mid range zoom ? The majority of my photography is landscapes and general travel with and without a tripod and I have no desire for sport shooting. Im definitely leaning away from the 28-300 range as the convenience doesn't seem to outweigh the image quality from what I've read.
Unfortunately that's about as far as my budget can extend at the moment as nice as the 70-300 DO IS USM lens would be.
:cry:

any thoughts ?

Paul

[roanjohn]

I don't know if you guys have read this, but here is a review of the 28-300 L.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/Canon-28-300.shtml

BOTTOM LINE:

Close, but no cigar.

Ro1

[Belmondo]

I don't know if you guys have read this, but here is a review of the 28-300 L.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/Canon-28-300.shtml

BOTTOM LINE:

Close, but no cigar.

Ro1

Although I don't have a lot of experience with this lens yet, just scanning through the luminous-landscape review tends to confirm my initial impressions of it.

It looks like I've bought a very good, versatile lens, but not an amazaingly good one. Where picture quality really matters, and when I have the anticipation time to do so, I will probably be using other lenses. Still, it does what I want it to which is to give me a huge range of focal length in a single package.

I think there will be a market for this lens, but not a huge one. (unless they lower the price and/or cure some of the CA/fringing problems at the larger aperture settings). It makes much more sense as a sub-$2,000 lens, sorry to say.

Just being honest.

[Jesper]

I've recently made some enquiries on the 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM, how does this rate as a mid range zoom ? The majority of my photography is landscapes and general travel with and without a tripod and I have no desire for sport shooting. Im definitely leaning away from the 28-300 range as the convenience doesn't seem to outweigh the image quality from what I've read.
Unfortunately that's about as far as my budget can extend at the moment as nice as the 70-300 DO IS USM lens would be.
:cry:

any thoughts ?

Paul

Hi Paul, if you don't want to spend lots of money, I think the 75-300 f/4.5-5.6 IS USM is not a bad choice. Ok, it's not an "L" lens, but for the money I think it's not a bad lens. Here's a page with lots of user reviews:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=16&sort=7&thecat=27

One of the main things with this lens seems to be that many people find it soft at the long end (200-300mm).

Note that there's also another version of the 75-300 (the 75-300 f/4.5-5.6 III USM). That one is maybe even cheaper, but it doesn't have IS (Image Stabilizer). The IS is well worth it, so get the IS version.

I think the 75-300 IS costs about $400-$450 or so in the USA - the 70-300 DO costs $1,299 and the 28-300 L that people are talking about here is one of those big, heavy, white professional lenses and it costs $2,500!

[ron chappel]

yeah saw that 'review'
i'm abit of a defender of michael but that review is abit sad.I want to see big pics at the very least
Comparisons with alternative lenses would be a big plus (like he used to do alot)
I mean if you were considering this lens ,you would also likely consider a pair of shorter ratio zooms as an alternative

[gcogger]

If you're considering the Canon 75-300, then you should certainly also look at the Sigma 70-300 APO Macro Super II. There seems to be a consensus that its image quality is excellent, and it's very reasonable priced. Doesn't have IS, though :-(

[Tom W]

If you're considering the Canon 75-300, then you should certainly also look at the Sigma 70-300 APO Macro Super II. There seems to be a consensus that its image quality is excellent, and it's very reasonable priced. Doesn't have IS, though :-(

And, you should also consider the Canon 100-300 f/4.5-5.6 USM. No IS, but it does have rear-focus with scale, full-time manual focus and a non-rotating front element.

As for the 28-300, I'd like to see Belmondo's comparisons. I think that the lens will show just a tick behind the other "L" lenses he has. I also think it will run a couple of ticks ahead of comparably ranged consumer zooms (not to mention top-notch build quality).

[Paul_O]

Jesper, Tom W, gcogger,
Thanks for your assistance, I was a the store today and after trying a few different options have settled on the 75-300 USM IS and will pick it up tomorrow. It was close betwen this and the 100-300 4-5.6 but I think the IS would allow a bit more flexibility in more situations. They still haven't released the 70-300 IS DO here yet which is probably a good thing as my wallet would've no doubt ended up $1000 lighter.

By the way, Is it just me or is this a Canon syndrome ? I go to the shop to have a look at something (for research purposes only) then come back with a heavy little box that usually costs a lot of money !

Paul

[cc10d]

Paul_O

My wife uses the 70-300 DO and is estatic with it. Very compact and light compared to other quality 300s. I find it allmost as sharp as the 100-400 L IS but not quite. It is super for its size and weight. Does not attract the attention from others that the 100-400 does. Does not break your arm while shooting with it a lot. Very nice lense. I believe it to be notably better at 300 that the 75-300 or the 100-300 are. It is very smooth operating also. THe focus and IS are quick. I think this is another vote for the 70-300DO IS. :D Have fun whatever you get. Chuck

[Belmondo]

Paul_O

My wife uses the 70-300 DO and is estatic with it. Very compact and light compared to other quality 300s. I find it allmost as sharp as the 100-400 L IS but not quite. It is super for its size and weight. Does not attract the attention from others that the 100-400 does. Does not break your arm while shooting with it a lot. Very nice lense. I believe it to be notably better at 300 that the 75-300 or the 100-300 are. It is very smooth operating also. THe focus and IS are quick. I think this is another vote for the 70-300DO IS. :D Have fun whatever you get. Chuck

Well, I hope you're right. I have one coming from B&H.

[Tom W]

Paul_O

My wife uses the 70-300 DO and is estatic with it. Very compact and light compared to other quality 300s. I find it allmost as sharp as the 100-400 L IS but not quite. It is super for its size and weight. Does not attract the attention from others that the 100-400 does. Does not break your arm while shooting with it a lot. Very nice lense. I believe it to be notably better at 300 that the 75-300 or the 100-300 are. It is very smooth operating also. THe focus and IS are quick. I think this is another vote for the 70-300DO IS. :D Have fun whatever you get. Chuck

Well, I hope you're right. I have one coming from B&H.

I think that you need to change that to "five ways to shoot a bundle". ;)

dang it, I can't keep up with the Belmondos - you get a fancy new zoom with a green stripe and all I have on order is a silly fast prime with a gold stripe. Life isn't fair.

[Belmondo]

Tom:
This has nothing to do with collecting lenses----it's my new fitness program.

Last summer I bought the 10D and the 28-135 zoom. At first I got very tired carrying them all around but, but I kept at it. I then added the 75-300 zoom and then the 17-40L. Then came the 400m f/5.6L, and on and on.

I can now carry around a couple hundred pounds of equipment with little or no trouble.

I figure that if I persevere, I’ll eventually be strong enough to carry the big primes.


I just don’t know how to use any of this stuff. :oops: :oops:

[Tom W]

Tom:
This has nothing to do with collecting lenses----it's my new fitness program.

Last summer I bought the 10D and the 28-135 zoom. At first I got very tired carrying them all around but, but I kept at it. I then added the 75-300 zoom and then the 17-40L. Then came the 400m f/5.6L, and on and on.

I can now carry around a couple hundred pounds of equipment with little or no trouble.

I figure that if I persevere, I’ll eventually be strong enough to carry the big primes.


I just don’t know how to use any of this stuff. :oops: :oops:

Story of my life. Started with an Elan II and a new 28-105 zoom. Then the 50/1.8 Mk I. Then a 70-210 zoom. Then the sigma, then "L" fever hit. And now, I'm picking up an 85/1.8. Will it never end?