Lots of Glass

is it me, or is the guy in the back middle of the Canon ad looking through the body upside down...?!

-He is. Note he's using his left hand, and pressing the "vertical grip" shutter button. Can't tell due to his position and the people in front of him, but it's possible he either has just one arm or hand, or perhaps has an injured/broken right hand.

Try it- if you have a 1D series or any camera with a battery grip and "portrait mode" shutter button, hold the camera upside down with your left hand. The vertical grip shutter button and most other duplicate controls fall to hand almost normally.

Doc.

doc... you gotta post some shots from it... its my dream lens... how is it? Do you like it enough to justify the cost? Someday.... Soooomday.. I just want to try one!

seriously though, can you start a new post somewhere with a few samples... Paaahhleeeease?
Thanks!
-zacker-

I once used an EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS in a camera shop attached to a 5D; the sales assistants happened to be messing around with it and let me have a go. I had gone in after something far more mundane - I wasn't intending to buy either the 5D or the lens, but it was interesting to handle them. I did put my 20D, BG-E2, EF 24-70mm f/2.8L and EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS on the desk, so it was clear that I wasn't going to do a runner with them.

I can only agree with the reviews I've read - the 28-300mm is a compromise lens designed for those situations where one lens has to go from wide angle (well, it's not that wide on a 1.6x camera, but fairly wide on the full frame 5D) to telephoto, such as certain types of fast moving photojournalism. It may be a good lens for some paparazzi type work, for example.


The 28-300mm is a relatively slow lens - well, it felt slow to me, as I'm used to f/2.8 constant aperture lenses. It's a push-pull design (I'm used to rotary zoom), it's heavy and the hood will be pretty ineffective at the longer focal lengths available. I didn't like the push-pull zoom, but I'd never used this style of lens before. I don't own an EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS nor have I ever used one - that's probably the more common Canon push-pull zoom.

The reviews I've seen indicate that the performance is not great at the wide angle end, which isn't surprising.


In most cases, I'd think that you're better off with separate lenses - I was certainly happy I was leaving the shop with my EF 24-70mm f/2.8L and EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS with me, rather than the shop's EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS. There again, my pair of lenses cost more, and you'd need an Extender II 1.4x to get the same sort of coverage at the telephoto end (well, 280mm as opposed to 300mm, but it's close).

I find the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS gets heavy after a while; the 24-70mm is noticeably lighter. The 28-300mm is a fair bit heavier than the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS or the 100-400mm.


I'd regard the 28-300mm as a special purpose lens. the-digital-picture.com concludes that in most cases you'd be better off with the two lenses I own than the 28-300mm.

There's always something attractive feeling about "superzoom" lenses. It's rather unlikely that you'll miss a shot because you have a lens on the camera that doesn't cover the right focal length. However, the optical, mechanical and practical considerations in making a 10.7x zoom lens are apparent enough to me after a while. For the right circumstances, you can't beat the lens, but I would barely use it if I had one.

David

wow david, my heads a spinnin!
Yeah ive read too that its not a super fast lens.. but my 70-200 f4 seems plenty fst for me. Im intrigued by the is and the fact that its an "L" lens... i would like the 24-70 but i want IS damnit! lol i am getting used to lugging the monopod around but sometimes i just dont wanna have to depend on using it, I cant, for the life of me get sharp pics hand held and trying just dissapoints me to no end. I have lost many, many good shots due to camera shake and it sucks! I wont even think of using the 70-200 withouh the monopod... it wont happen.. for hand holding i use the 28-135 IS it works and i love it lots but i wish it were a bit more "L-ish" so to speak. oh well, I guess i will wait for a 28-200 f 2 IS with "L" quality huh...lol
-zacker-

Zacker- I posted some paintball shots over in Sports, a shot of an Eagle over in Birds and a mountain landscape over in Scenery. All of them were taken with the 28-300L on my 1D/n.

No, it's not as "fast" as the 24-70 or the 70-200 2.8 but I have yet to find that as a limitation. Sure, I'd like to have a shallower depth of field for certain shots, but for my application, I needed either the range or the aperature. Nobody makes both.

I bought the lens specifically for paintball games, which isn't that much different from sports or certain photojournalism aspects. Being on the sidelines limits my "foot focus" room. The netting keeps me from backing up more than a foot or two, and the field boundary lines keep me from moving in much.

Then, the action can be literally right at my feet, or fifty yards away at the far corner of the field. So I needed some wide-angle and some telephoto, and the speed of the game means I don't have time to swap lenses. (Let alone the fact I had no desire to be opening up the camera where flying paintballs, paint spray or dirt could get in.)

When I got it, I had just the one body, the XT. Sure, it's possible now that I could (if I had them) put a 24-70 2.8 on the 1D and a 70-200 2.8 on the XT and possibly get a touch better image quality and better bokeh effects, but right now, other than the slower aperture, I have that all plus some on one lens.

The IS does everything it's designed for. I can easily handhold a full-extension 300mm shot and get crisp focus. I haven't tried it at significantly lower light levels (predawn or twilight) but in those cases, if I don't need to capture the fast action, I'd add the monopod.

Everything DavidW mentioned is pretty much true. For most applications, you'd be better off with two seperate lenses. Personally, I plan to eventually get the 24-70 and 70-200 2.8's myself. But for paintball, I'll continue to use the 28-300 because I need the range and the IS.

I'm the opposite of David, though- I much prefer the push/pull zoom than the twist. For me it's faster and more "natural" feeling, but that likely stems from the fact the first real zoom I ever used about 25 years ago was a push-pull.

I would assume those photographers shown above needed the same thing I did; in a situation where they might not have the time or the room to switch lenses and didn't want to carry two cameras, they needed both wide angle and telephoto. Notice that some of them have the barrel most of the way back (wide) some have it about halfway (about 150mm) and some have it at full length (telphoto.)

Personally, I've found it to be an excellent do-it-all lens. It's only real drawback is that it's way too big and heavy for any sort of "walking around" lens.

Before I got it, when all I had was the kit lens and a cheap $150 75-300 for the XT, I was lusting after a dozen lenses. Now, the 28-300 has most of that covered, and the only glass I want now is either faster (the aforementioned 24-70 and/or 70-200 2.8's) or longer (the 400 5.6, only because I can't afford the faster 400.)

Doc.

thanks doc, nce shots! That lens looks really good! i also would consider the 70-200f2.8is but 70MM is a real pain in the butt sometimes. If only it were a 28 or so...
-zacker-

Yes, all the big news places have gone to digital. And generally it's been Canon. Of course it helps that they help give them equipment. Although some photographers, who have their own Nikon glass use Nikon bodies(at least with the LA Times). But so far, LA Times, OC Register, SI all do Canon.

This thread reminded me of a pic I saw on FM in a long running thread, "Post Pics of Canon in Action". Just scroll down the page until you see the Nikon Pen.

http://www.fredmiranda​.com/forum/topic/24754​9/34

It might interest a lot of you L fanatics to take a look at all the glass in that thread. Some 146 pages worth.

Ryan

Flanders wrote:
This thread reminded me of a pic I saw on FM in a long running thread, "Post Pics of Canon in Action". Just scroll down the page until you see the Nikon Pen.

http://www.fredmiranda​.com/forum/topic/24754​9/34

It might interest a lot of you L fanatics to take a look at all the glass in that thread. Some 146 pages worth.

Ryan

I just spent the better part of the day reading that thread....

And for some reason I feel totally, utterly inadequate that I do not have Big White.... small white like the 70-200 f/4L doesn't even count compared to all those big guns out there!!

I am so tempted by the Sigma 50-500 but it is that horrible EX finish that looks like powdercoat gone wrong. Why can't they make it white too!!

Ugh, maybe I need to stop by the hardware store on my way home from the camera store.. $5 of spray paint should fix that!!

Thats ok... According to my wife, my 30D with 70-200 f4 L attached is an adequate sized Penis!!!


-zacker-

I have no problems ignoring and laughing off the "enlarge your manhood" spam emails, but the moment some spammer tries the "ENLARGE YOUR LENS!!!!!$#(*#)!@@!" email thingy, with just $100 downpayment for an initial trial pack of 10 tablets guaranteed to make the L bigger and whiter, I am sooooooooooooooo sunk

Lightstream wrote:


I have no problems ignoring and laughing off the "enlarge your manhood" spam emails, but the moment some spammer tries the "ENLARGE YOUR LENS!!!!!$#(*#)!@@!" email thingy, with just $100 downpayment for an initial trial pack of 10 tablets guaranteed to make the L bigger and whiter, I am sooooooooooooooo sunk

I read in a health mag that none of them work ...

(thats why my wife came home early and caught me trying to attach a "Pump" to my 70-200 f4L... )
-zacker-

LOL @ the blonde chimping away in the front row whilst everyone else appears to be shooting.

Hope the Reuters guy didnt regret bringing that big prime in favour of a zoom

RyanD wrote:
This thread reminded me of a pic I saw on FM in a long running thread, "Post Pics of Canon in Action". Just scroll down the page until you see the Nikon Pen.

http://www.fredmiranda​.com/forum/topic/24754​9/34

It might interest a lot of you L fanatics to take a look at all the glass in that thread. Some 146 pages worth.

Ryan

That really is hysterically funny. Maybe the Nikon ad line runs something like 'Tired to get trampled upon by your fellow shooters? Get a NOINK and come to our pen...

Best regards,
Andy