Own BOTH 28-300L and 100-400L? Thoughts, please...

I've got a 100-400L, and am satisfied with it. I also have a 70-200 IS L, which I use a lot for cycling competitions (bike races). For short shots, like Podium shots, I have to swap out the 70-200L for a short zoom.

The thought occurred to me that if I got a 28-300, I could probably eliminate swapping lenses, and drop at least one lens from my arsenal altogether...maybe two.

Whaddya think?

Regards!
Don

Don - I just finished evaluating a copy of the 28-300L via the CPS loan program. I primarily tested this lens on a 5d2 using auto ISO and a monopod at a major botanical gardens - so my subjects were moving a bit slower than you may experience.

This lens is a beast and a workout. That said, for an 11x zoom, IQ is impressive and IS is amazing. Auto ISO on the 5D2 (which I am just learning - as I recently obtained both the 5D2 & 1D3) had me shooting mostly at shutter speed = < 1 / focal length.

In the 5 or so hours I worked this lens, I had > 400 captures and a keeper rate > 90%. This despite the goofy auto ISO settings (re inappropriate shutter speeds). I had many 300mm shots captured at 1/30 or slower - AND the keeper rate was very high. Talk about good IS (most shots were on a monopod).

It is what it is. Not sure that it's sharper than my 70-200mm f4L IS or my 100L or 180L macros, but it's not bad. Probably the best all purpose zoom that I've used - at least as far as IQ.

That said, after working it and lugging it for most of the day, I felt very beat-up (physically) and yearned for my 70D with its oft-disparaged EF-S 18-200mm.

Another issue that I found annoying: the rubber on the underside of the tripod collar stubbornly stuck to the lens barrel - making it impossible to loosen the tripod collar to flip the camera into portrait mode. Thus, if mounted to a monopod or tripod, one could setup and shoot in portrait mode or landscape mode, but not both. Thus, the larger files of the 5D2 - shot in landscape mode - could be cropped to portrait mode in post processing - but I wouldn't do so with smaller file sizes (as on a 5Dc or 1D3).

My summary - tentative as I'm still reviewing these results:

Pros: nice IQ, solid and fast (mostly) AF, impressive IS (Canon claims 4 stops and that's pretty close).

Cons: $$$ - wow!!! (the refurb price just increased ~$300 today, not that any refurbs are actually available), massive - made of lead?, extremely conspicuous (really stands out in a sea of photographers, ugh.).

All in all, I was impressed with the images but not so much with the massive bulk of this beast, and the construction or build quality was the poorest I have EVER experienced in an L lens. No excuse for the tripod collar. It was a piece of junk. I found that the lens tightening ring was constantly annoying - as it stuck to the focus ring in such a way that one needed 2 hands to tighten or un-tighten this ring. Sadly, I don't have 3 or 4 hands to secure equipment and make such adjustments on the fly.

My purpose was to see if this lens could be used for higher IQ than my crop mounted 18-200. The answer seems to be a heavily qualified yes, but the qualifications are severe.

ymmv,
Dale

If you are looking to avoid lens swaps, another alternative to consider is adding a 2nd body for your 70-200mm.

Thanks, Dale.

As I posted, I use the 70-200L a LOT, and like it a lot. I'm also used to the 100-400L, and the idiosyncrasies of the push-pull focal length system. I've found that I needed to grab BOTH the rubber ring AND the "smooth-tight" ring at the same time and twist to loosen or tighten easily. Not an issue.

In terms of the weight, Yeah, it's a beast, but not THAT much heavier than the 100-400. I use a monopod about half the time, anyway, so not an issue, either.

I'm selling stuff and saving money to afford the move to the 28-300L, and would rather buy the best than consider others, such as the Tamron 28-300 PZD or the 16-300 PZD, really only because I trust the quality of the Canon L more than others, although pictures on the appropriate Flickr galleries show that they're not bad, either...

Thanks!
Don

Hi Don, I owned this lens for 3 years. I have written a review of it that can be seen in the Section "LENS REVIEWS". Please read this for further information...

I was very pleased with the IQ and the IS was very good. I used the lens a considerable amount during the period of my Boys growing up and I have many cracking shots over their pre-teenager years taken with this lens. It's biggest advantage is its focal range as well as being very versatile. The push pull action you soon get use to.

However,..... I too experienced problems with my tightening ring as daleg explains in his post above. Eventually the tightening ring packed up and would not tighten. I presume that I just wore it out over the years..

It is a sharp lens but not a touch on the 70-200 (f/2.8) IS USM Mk II which I replaced it with. I certainly would not pay the amount of money it is new, my model was almost new which had very little use. I picked it up for £1000 saving £800. It was worth every penny of £1000.

I managed to get more than what I payed 3 years later. With this expensive hobby it's not often you can do that.

I cannot criticise the lens for it's performance but again I have to agree with daleg the build quality is not that of your usual L range lenses.

Hi, Scott!

Been there, done that...don't want to do that.

I'm, very mobile and active at the races, and just don't want two rigs hanging off my body as I perambulate around the courses. Some courses are really hilly, muddy, swampy, etc., and keeping ONE from going to ground is enough of a challenge, let alone two.

I've really explored most of the variations on the theme, and have concluded that one body with a highly variable lens is a good answer. Yeah, I know zooms don't have the tech specs as a prime, and yeah, I know that superzooms aren't purportedly going to perform as well as a "standard" zoom, but empirical observation shows that for what I do, a superzoom would likely do just fine.

Regards!
Don

Don,

I hope you update this thread from time to time - as I'd like to hear about your experiences.

I haven't dismissed this lens - it's just that my evaluation has raised some questions, and there are the budgetary considerations. So few dollars, so much equipment to consider.

While I've looked at the Tamron 16-300 (APS-C only?) and the 28-300 (both Piezos), I hesitate as my purpose is to improve upon the IQ of my crop body EF-S 18-200.

Good luck,
Dale

Hi, Dale.

I haven't convinced myself about any of the options, yet. To be sure, the price (and rarity) of a used 28-300L is an issue, but I'm not sure that I want to compromise with the Tamron 16-300 PZD, although the shots I've seen DO look pretty good. I really have all winter to come up with the decision, which will also entail moving some equipment out to afford the Canon, and/or make up my mind that the Tamron 16-300 will work for me.

I'll post here when I've made the move...don't expect it for a while, though.

Regards!
Don

Just read your review. Thanks for the input. I (with my 100-400) make sure that the rings are loosened completely, so as to avoid any friction-induced paint loss. I don't think you should ever use the ring as a "damper" on the sliding of the barrel.

I shoot mostly with the 70-200L while doing the bike races, and like everything about it. Don't think I'd ever part with it. "Horses for Courses" and all that...

I've had a large number of lenses in and out of my lens boxes over the years, and haven't EVER had an issue with build quality. Yeah, many of the less expensive glass is polycarbonate, and sometimes the fit/finish isn't great, but...if the glass does it's job, I've never taken issue with that aspect.

The moisture-proofness (is that a word?) is generally OK, and I make sure to protect my gear in nasty weather.

I guess I'll make the decision when forced to do so, or when a GREAT deal shows up...

Regards!
Don

I shoot a combination of a 1Ds2 & the 28-300 L IS along with a 1D4 & the 100-400 L IS at radio control events. I'm on the flight line for an average of 6 hours at each event. When I can I'll set one body down but most of the time I'm carrying both. For my needs it's been the perfect combination but I also have the older (and lighter) 35-350 L & got great results with it too. Here's the link to one of the many albums done using the combo mentioned & if you open up the photo information tab it will show which body / lens was used for any specific shot.

http://picasaweb.googl​e.com …penHouse2014?no​redirect=1

Now on the last day of this event I decided to primarily shoot the 28-300 on the 1D4 because most shots were along the flight line area. Keep in mind that I can use higher shutter speeds for these because I don't need prop blur. Unfortunately I was also shooting toward the sun due to field's layout.

https://picasaweb.goog​le.com …undaySFlying?no​redirect=1

LOVELY shots, Larry! I see no flaws to pick on in any shot. Dunno what choice I'll eventually make, but all the input will certainly help my decision.

Regards!
Don

I hope they help in your research. Glad you enjoyed them. I've been using the 28-300 for 3 full seasons & regret not getting it sooner. It is however a heavy lens but for my needs it's the right tool for the job. Out of curiosity I tried the Nikon 28-300 last year on a D7100 but it wasn't sharp enough nor could the combo AF fast enough so it got benched.

Thanks again!

Merry Christmas!

Don

Don Madson wrote in post #17346831
Hi, Dale.

I haven't convinced myself about any of the options, yet. To be sure, the price (and rarity) of a used 28-300L is an issue, but I'm not sure that I want to compromise with the Tamron 16-300 PZD, although the shots I've seen DO look pretty good. I really have all winter to come up with the decision, which will also entail moving some equipment out to afford the Canon, and/or make up my mind that the Tamron 16-300 will work for me.

I'll post here when I've made the move...don't expect it for a while, though.

Regards!
Don

Don -

an update, for a variety of reasons, I recently purchased a copy of the 35-350 from fleabay. so far, so good. it's very clean. will update when I've had a chance to get it out and work with it. mother nature has been uncooperative, at best, lately.

Dale

daleg wrote in post #17449925
Don -

an update, for a variety of reasons, I recently purchased a copy of the 35-350 from fleabay. so far, so good. it's very clean. will update when I've had a chance to get it out and work with it. mother nature has been uncooperative, at best, lately.

Dale

Funny, I was actually going to suggest doing just that. I used to own the 28-300L, but found it too big/expensive to have around, yet I still wanted a superzoom at times. So I found a clean 35-350L for less than half the price. It's smaller, lighter, and cheaper than the 28-300L. As for lack of IS, as I have steady hands and typically use it outside in decent light, it wasn't a deal-breaker for me. IQ between them are close enough to me as to not be worried about it. And yes, of course you lose the 28-34mm range, but again, for me, this was ok. Others might feel different.