Canon 28-300 3.5-5.6 L for Landscape

I am currently looking for a single lens that I can carry for landscape photography and someone has offered a reasonably good price for the Canon 28-300 3.5-5.6 L. I've checked the samples here at the forum and they all seem to be not as good as other Canon L lenses in terms of sharpness, color and contrast.
I'll be shooting mostly F5.6 and about so the aperture doesn't bother me.

Any feedback on this lens please? Any alternatives from 3rd party vendors?

-Randal

That lens is big and heavy. What type of camera body do you have -- full frame dSLR, APS-C dSLR, full frame mirrorless, etc.?

I have a DSLR Full frame (Canon 6D) and a full frame mirrorless (Sony A7II with the MC11 adapter). I saw that the common comments on review sites is the weight. I intend to use it on the 6D most of the time and will probably carry a tripod.
I have a 70-200F4 which I use mostly if I need something light.
The main reason I'm considering the 28-300 is to minimize the number of lenses I need to bring and avoid changing lenses if possible because it's quite dusty and windy on places I go. But I don't want to sacrifice image quality too much.

Sure, it's heavy, but so is any 3 lens combination in the bag to match it for a 28mm-300mm range.

Here is a quote from https://www.the-digital-picture.com …L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

"The Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM Lens is the right choice for those times when you need a wide range of focal lengths but only one lens can go with you and both lens and image quality cannot be compromised. The 28-300 L is the best Canon do-everything-with-one-lens lens available."

Thanks Chuck. Saw that article too. I was hoping to get more feedback on the image quality from users here at POTN. The images i saw on the lens sample page looks a little soft especially at the wide end. Wanted to know if that is really the case

It is tough to design a zoom lens with a wide focal length range (especially if it has both wide angle and telephoto range) and maintain image quality. A rule of thumb is that image quality will suffer if the shortest focal length is less than 1/4 or 1/5 the longest focal length on a zoom. Stopping down to F/8 or F/11 will help, but there are still limits, especially outside the center portion of the lens.

randalcandari wrote in post #19203927
...I was hoping to get more feedback on the image quality from users here at POTN. The images i saw on the lens sample page looks a little soft especially at the wide end. Wanted to know if that is really the case

I would think many here could comment on this aspect of the lens. Let's see.

It's over 10x zoom and sharpness for the entire range is a real challenge for the lens engineers.

Yup, im ok with sacrificing some sharpness since my main reason for getting this lens is its range of focal lengths.i'm not expecting the same level of image qualitt as say the 70-200.
I'm just a little concerned that the samples i've seen so far are too soft even when viewing on an ipad.

I know of one accredited motorsport photographer who at Goodwood uses two bodies.

1 with the 400f4 DO lens
1 with the 28-300 Canon lens.

I'm kind of considering a used 28-300 myself. But, will probably rent one when I think I may need it.

That’s good to know. I might check the lens next week.

I have no experience with the lens, but Tamron makes a 28-200mm for Canon full frame. It's pretty inexpensive, and smaller / lighter than the EF 28-300mm L.

Personally, I am satisfied using a 24-105mm L as my "walk around" lens. I used to own the original EF version for my old 5D3, and now have the RF version for my EOS R.

EDIT: Tamron also has a 28-300mm version. Still less expensive and smaller / lighter than the Canon version.

Scott M wrote in post #19204298
I have no experience with the lens, but Tamron makes a 28-200mm for Canon full frame. It's pretty inexpensive, and smaller / lighter than the EF 28-300mm L.

Personally, I am satisfied using a 24-105mm L as my "walk around" lens. I used to own the original EF version for my old 5D3, and now have the RF version for my EOS R.

EDIT: Tamron also has a 28-300mm version. Still less expensive and smaller / lighter than the Canon version.

Will have a look at the Tamron. I used to have the canon 24-105F4 as it came as the 6D kit lens. I'm also thinking of getting either that or the 24-70F4 as a second option if the 28-300 doesn't work out.