EF 28-300 f/3.5-5.6L IS USM dilemma

I am soon planning on getting some real good glass something that will last years and years.

One option I am looking at getting is the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM with the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM.

These two lenses basically cover most of what I shoot and are regarded as Canon's best zooms for sharpness detail and contrast.

I really like the 24-70mm and 70-200mm IS and they are most likely the lenses ill get.

But i have been looking at the EF 28-300 f/3.5-5.6L IS USM which on paper looks like a killer lens. The fact that i wouldn't have to change lenses is a great reason for me to get it.

How do you'll think the 28-300L IS compares to the two lenses mentioned earlier?

I was also worried about the way this lens zooms out. I was thinking won't dust on a windy day get into the lens?

Thanks for your time all

Dan

Well the 28-300 isn't the best considering it's L. It also is like a vacuum for dust with it's push pull...

It may be nice for you, but I would personally go with the other 2 lenses you mentioned.

The 28-300L is, unlike the 100-400L, weather and dust sealed. Presumably dust would be less of a problem than the "dust trombone"

push-pull allows for faster zooming as well - as compared to twist-turn.

ASk Chancellor, he is this lens' biggest proponent!!

You can't go wrong with the 24-70 f2.8 L & 70-200 f2.8 L IS combo.

RgB wrote in post #2056033
I am soon planning on getting some real good glass something that will last years and years.

Thanks for your time all

Dan

There are at least two aspects to lasting "years and years". Of course durability is important and L lenses are legendary for this. But, perhaps just as important is utility. I don't know if you are a long-time photographer or new to the hobby. If you've been doing it for some time, then you probably have a feel for your "style" and can determine whether the 28-300 suits it or not; and chose it as an option based on that style. On the other hand, if you chose it merely for its broad zoom range, you might be better off with the 2 lens solution. Based on B&H prices, here in the US this option is about 650 USD more, but you get f/2.8 at 200mm vs f/5.6 at 300mm. Down the road, you could get the Canon 1.4x teleconverter and still have a one-stop advantage over the 28-300 at about the same mass with a 280mm FL.

Obviously, the 2-lens solution with the 1.4x is almost 1000 USD more, but the increased utility and flexibility over years and years, IMO, is well worth it.

If you want the highest image quality and need the speed, go for the 24-70/70-200.

If you want something flexible and somewhat more portible, go for the 28-300.

I can't tell you how many shots I've missed switching lenses, but I can also say that the ones I do get are of the highest quality. Pick your posion.

The 28-300L is great for alot of applications, but not great in any. The 24-70L and 70-200L would be a better combo in my opinion

runninmann wrote in post #2056858
There are at least two aspects to lasting "years and years". Of course durability is important and L lenses are legendary for this. But, perhaps just as important is utility. I don't know if you are a long-time photographer or new to the hobby. If you've been doing it for some time, then you probably have a feel for your "style" and can determine whether the 28-300 suits it or not; and chose it as an option based on that style. On the other hand, if you chose it merely for its broad zoom range, you might be better off with the 2 lens solution. Based on B&H prices, here in the US this option is about 650 USD more, but you get f/2.8 at 200mm vs f/5.6 at 300mm. Down the road, you could get the Canon 1.4x teleconverter and still have a one-stop advantage over the 28-300 at about the same mass with a 280mm FL.

Obviously, the 2-lens solution with the 1.4x is almost 1000 USD more, but the increased utility and flexibility over years and years, IMO, is well worth it.

You bring up a great point about the 1.4x converter as it doesn't work on the 28-300L.

At Quality Camera Sales Australia the 28-300L is $3500 which works out cheeper.
The 24-70L is $2100 and the 70-200L IS f2.8 $2844.

28-300L = $3500 AU$
2 glass combo = $4944 AU$

For now the combo is looking the better option even though it's more expensive.

This is gonna take some serious thought.

Thanks everyone for your great help