Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
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 Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 13 Oct 2013 (Sunday) 21:57
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Man I hate this 28-300 L lense

 
foxbodychris
Senior Member
Avatar
250 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Aug 2013
Location: Mooresville, NC
     
Oct 13, 2013 21:57 |  #1

I am borrowing a buddies 28-300 L lense and decided to use it instead of my 70-200 2.8 IS II at this past weekends airshow in Ga. What a mistake that was! This lense is nowhere near in the same class as the 2.8 it terms of sharpness or speed but really had no choice cause the planes were a little to far to really use my 2.8.
Anyone ever have the problem as well?? Granted it is nice around 200mm but dont think I will be putting that lense back on my camera.


Canon 1D Mark III, 7D Mark II gripped, 70-200 2.8 IS II, manfrotto monopod, manfrotto tripod
FACEBOOK (external link)
FLICKR (external link)
WEBSITE (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
elleana
Member
155 posts
Joined Sep 2013
     
Oct 13, 2013 22:39 |  #2

Thats the problem with superzooms, there's a trade of between convenience/reach and IQ.


6D | EF 17-40mm f/4L USM | EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM | Sigma 35mm f/1.4 ART | EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
goldboughtrue
Goldmember
1,857 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Mar 2007
Location: Colorado
     
Oct 14, 2013 00:46 |  #3
bannedPermanent ban

People spell "lens" different ways, it doesn't matter.

The 28-300 came out almost 10 years ago, but the 70-200 f/2.8 II is much more recent with better technology and optics. It should be much better than the 28-300. At the time, I suppose the 28-300 was great.


http://www.pbase.com/g​oldbough (external link)

5D II, Canon 100 macro, Canon 70-200 f/4L, Canon 24-105 L, Canon TS-E 45, Sigma Art 35mm f/1.4

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
davidfarina
Goldmember
Avatar
3,357 posts
Gallery: 52 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 1033
Joined May 2013
     
Oct 14, 2013 03:30 |  #4

Vice versa, i think for such a huge zoom range it does a good job. I just dont understand people wanting such a zoom range but argueing about its sharpness. What do you expect, it just cant match prime quality. The 70-200 from canon is one of the few lenses which are very close to prime quality, dont take that as reference..


Sony A7RII | Sony A7S
EF 40 | EF 70-300L | FD 35 Tilt-Shift
FE 16-35 | FE 28 | FE 90
CV 15 4.5 III | CV 40 1.4 MC | Summilux 50 ASPH
Website (external link) | 500px (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Owl_79
Senior Member
Avatar
786 posts
Likes: 99
Joined Feb 2010
     
Oct 14, 2013 05:08 |  #5

Canon should update their superzoom series up to date. Those current models are quite oldish.. For sure, nowdays Canon could make these superzooms much better when in terms of optical quality. Unfortunately, price tag would be definitely quite high.. 28-300L IS USM II 5000$ or so :D

Remember, those superzooms are very complex optical instruments and will never reach same IQ than standard zoom lens.


Canon
http://tonskulus.kuvat​.fi/kuvat/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Neilyb
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,191 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 441
Joined Sep 2005
Location: Munich
     
Oct 14, 2013 06:17 |  #6

" but really had no choice cause the planes were a little to far to really use my 2.8." In which case the 70-200 was also a poor lens for the job at hand ;) The 28-300 covers alot of range but does it better than other equivalents on the market from everything I have read and tested myself. I am not saying you are wrong, it is poor compared to, most lenses with only a 2-4x zoom range but if you need 300mm then it is the better of two evils.


http://natureimmortal.​blogspot.com (external link)

http://www.natureimmor​tal.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
John ­ from ­ PA
Cream of the Crop
8,990 posts
Likes: 755
Joined May 2003
Location: Southeast Pennsylvania
     
Oct 14, 2013 06:50 |  #7

300/28 = 10.7....200/70 = 2.8

Anytime the zoom ratio, the numbers above, starts to exceed somewhere around 6, then image quality can suffer. The number I use, 6, may vary based on the opinions you will likely get here. But when that number gets high, as it is with the 28-300 being 10.7, then the lens manufacturer has to make significant compromises in design which affect the image quality, even in an "L" lens.

Sometimes more is better, meaning two lenses instead of a single super zoom.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
foxbodychris
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
250 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Aug 2013
Location: Mooresville, NC
     
Oct 14, 2013 07:12 |  #8

Thanks for all the responses and feedback. The 70-200 may have been better out of the 2 at some parts of the show but think I might invest in a 1.4x extender to get me in the 300mm area with less of a hit in IQ. I am not really hating the 28-300 because it's a good lens for what it is.


Canon 1D Mark III, 7D Mark II gripped, 70-200 2.8 IS II, manfrotto monopod, manfrotto tripod
FACEBOOK (external link)
FLICKR (external link)
WEBSITE (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Radders
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,017 posts
Likes: 19
Joined Oct 2009
Location: UK
     
Oct 14, 2013 07:30 |  #9

Would a 2x TC give better IQ results giving you 140-400mm?


| 1DII | 7D | 60D | 6D | 100 2.8 | 50mm 1.4 | 11-16 2.8 | 24-105 4 | 70-300 IS USM |
Totallyrad.co.uk (external link) | Airplane-Pictures.net (external link) |Facebook Page (external link) | Russianplanes.net (external link)Gear list

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jffielde
Member
195 posts
Joined Nov 2010
     
Oct 14, 2013 07:30 |  #10

I wonder if in that case, your 70-200 would have been better with the 1.4X teleconverter (or just the bare lens cropped, given the fairly significant difference between the IQ of one of Canon's best L's and it's worst?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
professorman
Goldmember
Avatar
1,661 posts
Likes: 1
Joined May 2009
Location: VA
     
Oct 14, 2013 08:07 |  #11

I have never used the 28-300L, however, as others have stated, superzooms always have lower IQ than standard zooms, which also have lower IQ than primes. You have to give up something in order to get a zoom of that range, and shooting at the extreme end usually means that you are giving up more IQ than in the middle range.


MyGear | Feedback | facebook (external link)|My Site (external link)|Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Keyan
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,319 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 78
Joined Mar 2011
     
Oct 14, 2013 08:08 |  #12

Just because I have to:

70-300L :)


Cameras: 7D2, S100
Lenses: 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM, 18-135 STM, 24-70 f/4L IS USM, 50 f/1.4 USM,70-300L IS USM
Other Stuff: 430 EX II, Luma Labs Loop 3, CamRanger

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
foxbodychris
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
250 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Aug 2013
Location: Mooresville, NC
     
Oct 14, 2013 08:20 |  #13

Don't get me wrong its a fine lens just not for me, lol. And man is it a heavyweight!!


Canon 1D Mark III, 7D Mark II gripped, 70-200 2.8 IS II, manfrotto monopod, manfrotto tripod
FACEBOOK (external link)
FLICKR (external link)
WEBSITE (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
davidfarina
Goldmember
Avatar
3,357 posts
Gallery: 52 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 1033
Joined May 2013
     
Oct 14, 2013 10:37 |  #14

Keyan wrote in post #16369593 (external link)
Just because I have to:

70-300L :)

bw!

Proud owner since a week, what a masterpiece with such a zoom range!


Sony A7RII | Sony A7S
EF 40 | EF 70-300L | FD 35 Tilt-Shift
FE 16-35 | FE 28 | FE 90
CV 15 4.5 III | CV 40 1.4 MC | Summilux 50 ASPH
Website (external link) | 500px (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
professorman
Goldmember
Avatar
1,661 posts
Likes: 1
Joined May 2009
Location: VA
     
Oct 14, 2013 12:07 |  #15

Keyan wrote in post #16369593 (external link)
Just because I have to:

70-300L :)

How about the 100-400? Its been a while, but that used to be the go-to telephoto zoom lens beyond 200mm.


MyGear | Feedback | facebook (external link)|My Site (external link)|Flickr (external link)

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

10,224 views & 1 like for this thread
Man I hate this 28-300 L lense
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
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?
Register to forums
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 kawaki
1100 guests, 295 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

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.