Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Sample Photo Archives Lens Sample Photo Archive 
Thread started 30 Dec 2006 (Saturday) 04:53
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 L IS USM

 
fWord
Goldmember
Avatar
2,637 posts
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Dec 30, 2006 04:53 |  #1

After having this lens for perhaps two weeks, today was the first chance I got to take it outdoors for a shoot. Previously I did some basic tests indoors and on a tripod, and the results were quite surprising in that this lens can produce images with good quality despite its very expansive and controversial zoom range:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=251518

Since a trip to the zoo is quite a big undertaking for me, I instead went to the Botanical Gardens, a nice pocket of peace and greenery. Here I ended up testing the 300mm end almost exclusively, and also shot subjects near the MFD. All these were done handheld, hence the subpar quality in some cases. After today's shoot I made a few observations.

This thing is a beast! It's extremely heavy. On a 1-series body the whole thing feels a little back-heavy but otherwise well-balanced. When extended fully it can be a challenge to handle for the not-so-strong. After handling it and shooting continuously for only three and a half hours, I'm now feeling the strain especially in my right hand.

It is a push-pull zoom, just like the popular 100-400mm. But Canon seems to have (consciously or unconsciously) added something else to the functionality of this zoom. In the past when I used the 100-400mm, I noticed that if I pointed the camera downwards without tightening the zoom friction ring, the lens would extend and finally stop with a hard 'clunk'. In the 28-300mm, there is some resistance between the 200-300mm mark. Hence if the lens is pointed downwards by accident, the lens seems to extend but stop short of hitting its end.

Conversely, once the lens is at the 300mm mark, there appears to be a 'soft lock' and if the camera is tilted upside down, the lens does not retract back even if the zoom friction ring has been completely loosened. This is a very nice feature! That said I always ensure I retract the lens completely and tighten the ring before moving anywhere.

Image quality, although good, obviously doesn't get anywhere near that of prime lenses, but it may be able to rival consumer zooms with much more conservative zoom ratios. RAW images needed slightly more aggressive sharpening (Level 4 in DPP), but once done the images get their 'pop', as can be expected. This lens is impressively sharp at the middle of its zoom range. It appears to be softer at either of its ends, but then again, not consistently. I suspect there's a learning curve involved.

I have no complaints about focusing speed, which is decent by any standards, and particularly impressive considering the zoom range. IS is a beauty...all three stops worth of it. It's especially important when you consider that the weight will eventually tire you, and handshake becomes even more severe. It allowed me to handhold at 1/8s for a photo of a small man-made waterfall...long enough to get a silky water effect.

This lens has excellent close-focusing abilities. While it won't get you frame-filling photos of small dragonflies, it is great for flowers and small animals still. Paired together with a 500D closeup filter, it might make for a good naturalist's lens. This lens, plus a 400mm f/5.6L or 500mm f/4L on a 1D-series is conceivably very nice for a safari.

So anyway, while I'm not sure how long this thread will last, and how long I'll keep this lens (because it's too heavy for me), here's some purely demonstrative (not meant to be artistic) photos from my first outdoor trip with the 28-300mm 'Perfect Partner'.

Fall in love. ;)

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://img.photobucket​.com …51/s1ckpuppy/FA​BE7353.jpg (external link)


This dragonfly is pretty small:

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://img.photobucket​.com …51/s1ckpuppy/FA​BE7378.jpg (external link)


PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://img.photobucket​.com …51/s1ckpuppy/FA​BE7420.jpg (external link)


A waterfall at 1/8s:

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://img.photobucket​.com …51/s1ckpuppy/FA​BE7435.jpg (external link)


Barrels of cactus at 300mm:

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://img.photobucket​.com …51/s1ckpuppy/FA​BE7448.jpg (external link)


A toad at 300mm:

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://img.photobucket​.com …51/s1ckpuppy/FA​BE7455.jpg (external link)


And the obligatory duck shot:

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://img.photobucket​.com …51/s1ckpuppy/FA​BE7403.jpg (external link)

LightWorks Portfolio (external link)
Night Photography Tutorial: Basics & Minutiae (external link)
Gear List (Past & Present)
The Art of Composition IS the Art of Photography.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
G35Driver
Goldmember
Avatar
1,430 posts
Joined Feb 2007
Location: Fernley, NV USA
     
Sep 12, 2007 04:23 |  #2

are you the only one with this lens? is this lens that bad or is it that its just too expensive?


ll 40D ll XTI ll 17-40mm f/4L ll 50mm f1.4 ll 420EX ll
My Complete Gear List /Honolulu POTN

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
asylumxl
Goldmember
2,306 posts
Joined Jul 2006
Location: Stuck in an invisible box
     
Sep 12, 2007 10:34 |  #3

Too expensive. It's a good lens, but people avoid superzooms, even if it is a good one.


...............
I M A G E I N A T I O N
..........WEBSITE (external link)
...............
Pixel peeping is like count the sides of a circle, pointless.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kahren
Senior Member
480 posts
Joined Sep 2005
Location: CT
     
Sep 12, 2007 10:42 |  #4

those pics look great



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rajastan5
Hatchling
4 posts
Joined May 2007
     
Sep 12, 2007 20:22 |  #5

I love the waterfall pic. What kind of PP did you use on that one?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
NickSim87
Sir Chimp-a-lot
3,602 posts
Joined Dec 2005
Location: SE, Michigan
     
Sep 12, 2007 22:20 |  #6

I'd like to have one for the heck of it, but dang it's a lot of money to pay for not getting the best IQ.

But in most situations I'd rather have the image then miss it entirely cause I was switching lenses ya know?


Gear List | Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
fWord
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
2,637 posts
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Sep 14, 2007 05:24 |  #7

G35Driver wrote in post #3912966 (external link)
are you the only one with this lens? is this lens that bad or is it that its just too expensive?

Nope. There are another one or two on this forum who have used, or are currently using this lens. Look up a member at these forums named 'chancellor', and you'll find its major supporter!

It's not a bad lens as far as superzooms go and I admire the weather sealing, IS and build quality. In practice it's very fun to use, even if a bit heavy. Give me the chance and I'd buy it again.


LightWorks Portfolio (external link)
Night Photography Tutorial: Basics & Minutiae (external link)
Gear List (Past & Present)
The Art of Composition IS the Art of Photography.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
fWord
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
2,637 posts
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Sep 14, 2007 05:25 |  #8

kahren wrote in post #3914490 (external link)
those pics look great

Thank you for the kind comment. These are just test pics...quite horribly done on top of that.


LightWorks Portfolio (external link)
Night Photography Tutorial: Basics & Minutiae (external link)
Gear List (Past & Present)
The Art of Composition IS the Art of Photography.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
fWord
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
2,637 posts
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Sep 14, 2007 05:26 |  #9

rajastan5 wrote in post #3917856 (external link)
I love the waterfall pic. What kind of PP did you use on that one?

Little PP was used on any of these photos. They were shot in RAW and converted to JPEG on Canon Digital Photo Professional. The usual Picture Style and little sharpening was applied. The silky water appearance is a result of the use of a slower shutter speed.


LightWorks Portfolio (external link)
Night Photography Tutorial: Basics & Minutiae (external link)
Gear List (Past & Present)
The Art of Composition IS the Art of Photography.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
fWord
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
2,637 posts
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Sep 14, 2007 05:28 |  #10

NickSimcheck wrote in post #3918582 (external link)
I'd like to have one for the heck of it, but dang it's a lot of money to pay for not getting the best IQ.

But in most situations I'd rather have the image then miss it entirely cause I was switching lenses ya know?

It's quite expensive to buy new, but back in the days when I bought mine, I paid relatively little for it on the second-hand market. I regret having sold it to upgrade from the 1D. Now it's so rare I doubt if I could find it again. However, given the chance, I would definitely try it again.

Indeed it's great to be able to use a setup and not worry about changing lenses in most circumstances.


LightWorks Portfolio (external link)
Night Photography Tutorial: Basics & Minutiae (external link)
Gear List (Past & Present)
The Art of Composition IS the Art of Photography.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Lightstream
Yoda
14,915 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Feb 2006
Location: Cult of the Full Frame
     
Oct 20, 2007 23:59 |  #11

Actually, the pics are quite good. Hmmm....... :)

Even changing bodies takes time and god forbid you have different settings on different bodies at that instant of time ;)

I'm sorta-almost-even-tempted..




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MaDProFF
Goldmember
Avatar
4,366 posts
Likes: 1
Joined May 2007
Location: East Sussex, UK
     
Nov 03, 2007 16:12 |  #12

Would you say that the IQ is as good at 300mm as a 100-400 at 400mm??


Photographic Images on Brett Butler (external link) px500 (external link) & Flickr (external link) Some Canon Bodies , few blackish lenses, A dam heavy black one, couple dirty white ones, a 3 legged walking stick, a mono walking stick, and a bag full of rubbish :oops:
And Still Learning all walks of life, & most of all Photography.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
woollyback
Senior Member
Avatar
923 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 620
Joined Oct 2005
     
Nov 03, 2007 16:21 |  #13

MaDProFF,

What a good question - that is exactly what I was thinking.
Our 100-400 @ 400 doesn't seem too bad mind.

Rob




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MaDProFF
Goldmember
Avatar
4,366 posts
Likes: 1
Joined May 2007
Location: East Sussex, UK
     
Nov 03, 2007 16:41 |  #14

woollyback wrote in post #4245961 (external link)
MaDProFF,

What a good question - that is exactly what I was thinking.
Our 100-400 @ 400 doesn't seem too bad mind.

Rob

I have a 100-400 as well, and if that 28-300 is as good IQ and sharp as the 400 @ 400 I might be very Tempted, it is dammed expensive though :(


Photographic Images on Brett Butler (external link) px500 (external link) & Flickr (external link) Some Canon Bodies , few blackish lenses, A dam heavy black one, couple dirty white ones, a 3 legged walking stick, a mono walking stick, and a bag full of rubbish :oops:
And Still Learning all walks of life, & most of all Photography.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CyberDyneSystems
Admin (type T-2000)
Avatar
48,310 posts
Gallery: 79 photos
Likes: 4433
Joined Apr 2003
Location: Rhode Island USA
     
Nov 03, 2007 17:41 |  #15

With the possible exception of the Cactus (coincedentally) and maybe the duck, even for web sized images these look soft to me.


GEAR LIST
CDS' HOT LINKS
Jake Hegnauer Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

337,673 views & 52 likes for this thread
Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 L IS USM
FORUMS Sample Photo Archives Lens Sample Photo Archive 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is johnowens
664 guests, 336 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.