Thinking about the 28-300L

I like the idea of having that much range in a single lens.

I already the range covered but don't like changing lenses when I only have one camera with me.

Any thoughts? Is it GAS?

When would you use it? What part of 28-300 do you now not cover with better glass? Guess I never was a superzoom fan.

There was a post recently asking about the 35-350 & since I have both I'll say the 28-300 is HEAVY. That said it's one of my most used lenses thanks to the versatility it offers. I have no complaints re IQ & I think I'm relatively fussy but also realistic in how large I might print (I have an Epson 3880). You have the 70-200 f2.8 L IS II which is 52.6 oz / 1490 grams while the 28-300 comes in at 59.2 oz / 1680 grams so think about carrying that weight all day & go from there.

If you can live without the wide end and IS, pick up a 35-350L for half the price, and if you find yourself using it a lot, then consider the 28-300L. I sold my 28-300L for a 35-350L after having both at the same time and finding no difference in IQ at comparable focal lengths.

Versatile range, but note the wide end still has MFD like a telephoto and not like most wide angle lenses. If you want the wide end for group shots or panoramic vistas then this is not an issue. If you like a wide angle for close details with an expansive background, the lens doesn't work.

Yep...same reason I have the 28-300L on my 50D and just picked up a 35-350L to hang onto my little SL1.
The places I go, I don't like having a bunch of junk hanging on my waist or in some packpack. I also need the capibility of shooting things closer than a 70-200 will get and also things farther away than a 55-250 will get easily.

While I'm still learning the "push-pull" thing, I'm happy with what I have so far (pictures taken so far)and not totally unhappy with the costs involved.

It's something only "you"...can make that decision and then have to live with.
Me...I'm good..!

Mike

The convenience sounds nice, but would you use it over your much better lens options?

gonzogolf wrote in post #16799536
The convenience sounds nice, but would you use it over your much better lens options?

Depends on usage, but I find that I'm stopping down some anyways when I use my 35-350L, as I'm outside in decent light. So the "much better lens options" I may have aren't giving me as much advantage if stopped down to f/8 or something. Nevermind the convenience etc.

The biggest piece of advice I could give in relation to the 28-300L or the 35-350L is a full-frame camera. I have found the 35-350L is a whole new lens on my 6D, where on the 7D it was much more of a compromise. Still usable for sure, I have just found the full-frame sensor helps a lot.

I shoot my 70-300 IS USM at 5.6 or 8.0 almost all the time and that works for me. If I need better glass, I don't mind changing unless I'm on a horse. iF I know I will be riding, I usually settle for my 28-135. What I really need for horseback is a 35-250 or somesuch so maybe the 55-250 would work. I print 8x10 mostly. I think that in a pinch I could get by without the extra 50mm. <g>

gonzogolf wrote in post #16799536
The convenience sounds nice, but would you use it over your much better lens options?

"Much" better options...?
I don't think they are much better options. Primes being slightly sharper, sure. I don't print much and what I may do isn't that large.

So far...if I can see lines of a tig weld puddle clearly, or if I can see the braid of a high pressure fuel or oil pressure line clearly from 25+ yards away, or if I can see a sponser sticker/decal (normally about 2" x 5") on the side of the car...clearly at 75 to 85 yards away...
Both my noted lenses have shown that they can do this without question and very clearly. So yes, these will suit me fine, over carrying 3 or 4 lenses around and having to try to dig into a bag, swap lenses all in about 10 seconds...yes...NO question, I have the right lenses for the job.

Mike

Mike - wrote in post #16799824
"Much" better options...?
I don't think they are much better options. Primes being slightly sharper, sure. I don't print much and what I may do isn't that large.

So far...if I can see lines of a tig weld puddle clearly, or if I can see the braid of a high pressure fuel or oil pressure line clearly from 25+ yards away, or if I can see a sponser sticker/decal (normally about 2" x 5") on the side of the car...clearly at 75 to 85 yards away...
Both my noted lenses have shown that they can do this without question and very clearly. So yes, these will suit me fine, over carrying 3 or 4 lenses around and having to try to dig into a bag, swap lenses all in about 10 seconds...yes...NO question, I have the right lenses for the job.

Mike

Do you have the lens collection the OP listed? I'm glad it works for you. But you cant pretend that your superzoom is as sharp as the individual lenses in the OP's list. Sometimes it might be preferable to have convenience over quality, thats for you to decide.

Since you have two good zooms already (24-70mm & 70-200mm), I'd suggest investing in carrying gear/bags that will facilitate lens changing.

I often carry two bodies with 24-200 mounted.
Just kicking around the idea of one body & lens with similar range. (Getting old.)

I might even consider something like an Olympus Stylus 1, same focal range in a small package.

I ALMOST bought the 28-300, but when I rented it before I was about to buy it, I had been spoiled on the 70-200, that the quality of the image wasn't good enough for me, so I didn't buy it. That's the problem with good lenses. They spoil us.