Why not many 28-300L users?

another one

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Above two aren't models (in case of any confusion ), but my two drunken friends.

Below, the mandatory duck that I never posted. 28-300L while on a short business trip in Dublin.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

... and, of course, Dante's favorite twig

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

across the street from the twig

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

I have over 100Gb of pics most of which are made using 28-300. Unless I have a lazy-eye on appreciating the quality of photos (please keep in mind that aforementioned photos have no PP and have been significantly changed in size to comply with posting rules), I don't see any problems with the quality of the photos.

I agree nice shots! makes me miss mine a little. well maybe someday I'll replace it

Mike, thanks a lot.

I am a proud owner. It is attached to my 40D most of the time.
There MAY be a slight trade off in sharpness compared to a couple of my primes but one would have to perform a VERY critical side by side comparison on enlargements. That said, it does take some time to master its idiosyncrasies. It is not a perfect lens, when one is produced I would appreciate a heads-up. I shoot a lot of birds and aviation and it only disappoints in very low light. I have hummingbird shots that are astounding, shot at 30 feet (cropped a little) and individual pollen grains on the beak can be counted! Professional caliber I'm not, but the lens is. I think 70% of the criticism it receives is doled out by non-owners and 20% by those who have not taken the time to adjust. The last 10% would be fair criticism. Keep in mind also that some of these folks are judging results when used with a Rebel----give us a break. And comparing this lens with the Tameron is laughable. It is a plastic toy with slightly pleasing optics at best. I suggest that folks rent some lenses before they purchase. If you are put off by the weight and size then shoot with a Rebel and Tameron glass. You will have acceptable images and NO pride of ownership. Spending hard earned dollars and having your images deemed only acceptable should keep us up at night! That may sound stuffy but it is true. This lens with little care will last a lifetime. If you shoot mostly outside like I do, in less than a year the Tameron will be full of visible dust-----like my cheap 17-85 IS.

Mike Reynolds wrote in post #1886745
well here's a samply of the copy I received tell me what do you think?

http://i53.photobucket​.com …53/damnplumber/​34rear.jpg

taking a photo of wyatts truck i see?

Pretty nice! How about this one.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

I have one, can I play too? There's nothing wrong with the lens, but it does have a learning curve. I personally think the big drawback is the price. A lot of people won't spend that kind of money on one lens when they can buy lenses like the 70-200mm L lenses and another for the wide end. The price and the weight. It's a heavy sucker. But, I'm one of the rare photographers who actually spends time working out, so weight doesn't mean squat to me.

AmericanFirst wrote in post #1663875
The TAmROn AF28~300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di
equivalent (minus the IS) is only 14.8 oz and runs about $369.00.
...

Kidding , right ?

i considered it for portraits but for the same price i bought a 24-70 and a 70-200

Maybe it's because I'm a pretty new shooter, but honestly, I didn't know the lens even existed

Once I found out about the lens, it was pretty much all over from there. All I needed to do was wait until I could buy one, which came when I finally said screw it and forked over the cash for it. It did help that KEH had a used one in spectacular condition for only $1800.

I don't think many people want a "one-lens-does-all" like the 28-300mm, simply because of the weight and the price. People are probably looking at stuff like the Tamron 18-270mm and the new Sigma 18-250mm. Lighter, cheaper, and decent IQ.