Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 L IS USM

A few of the shots from local events I volunteer to photograph. I have used both the 28-300 & my older 35-350 this season but for the heli's I need a bit of help from the IS due to the slower shutter speeds. All were shot with a 7D2

Man, I kinda like that.

How bad are the skeeters out there? Seems like they would eat you up.

Thanks. Very few blood sucking skeeters so far this season. That said I've been bitten so much over the years that I don't react to the local ones. It's a different story however when I'm away on vacation.

I took this lens and the 6D on a family weekend trip to the beach.

The EOS R really makes this lens shine!

Photo from C Scott IV's gallery.

Dude,

These last 4 are fantastic. Excellent work.

Keep ‘em coming.

Two wrote in post #18795527
Dude,

These last 4 are fantastic. Excellent work.

Keep ‘em coming.

Thank you! It was a good week! The 28-300L loves the EOS R.

C Scott IV wrote in post #18795534
Thank you! It was a good week! The 28-300L loves the EOS R.

Awesome images. Very nice work.
I need to dust-off my 28-300.
Compliments.

Dale

daleg wrote in post #18795572
Awesome images. Very nice work.
I need to dust-off my 28-300.
Compliments.

Dale

Thank you!

These are from a concert last night shot with the EF 23-300L. The fog machine was working overtime! As a result of the smaller aperture and fog it didn't focus as quickly as the RF 24-105L. The out of focus areas are smoother than I expected.

Photo from C Scott IV's gallery.

Photo from C Scott IV's gallery.

C Scott IV wrote in post #18795534
Thank you! It was a good week! The 28-300L loves the EOS R.

I'm glad it does, and I'm glad you bumped this - one of the reasons I got an R is for travel with the upcoming RF24-240 if it's good enough (and RF35 for low-light), and the results of this (older, but L) FF super-zoom are good. For you and the other users, are the results of a FF with the 28-300 really appreciably better than a crop with 18-135? My instinct tells me it must be (more light, after all), but I'd like to hear from everyone who's used it, or preferably tried both.

LonelyBoy wrote in post #18858072
I'm glad it does, and I'm glad you bumped this - one of the reasons I got an R is for travel with the upcoming RF24-240 if it's good enough (and RF35 for low-light), and the results of this (older, but L) FF super-zoom are good. For you and the other users, are the results of a FF with the 28-300 really appreciably better than a crop with 18-135? My instinct tells me it must be (more light, after all), but I'd like to hear from everyone who's used it, or preferably tried both.

I had the EF 28-300L when I got my 7D/18-135 kit. I never liked the 18-135. It wasn't terrible at the wide end but the EF 28-300L was better from 28 to 135 mm. The long end never came close to 135 on the 28-300L. Of course the 28-300L is at its best between 100 and 200 mm. So I rarely used the 18-135. That was with the 7D crop. I don't think I ever put the 18-135 on the 80D.

The EF 28-300L is even better on the R so I don't know how a 18-135 on a crop body could compete with it. Especially if you need 300 mm for the shot.

I've been thinking about what I would take on a landscape trip if I could only take one, two or three lenses. Obviously I would take the R.

1 lens - EF 28-300L
2 lenses - EF 17-40L and EF 28-300L
3 lenses - EF 17-40L, RF 24-105L, EF 100-400L and a 1.4x TC (think mountains)

I find myself reaching for the EF 28-300L more than the RF 24-105 when I head out to the lake/swamp because quite often 105 mm isn't long enough. My only complaint about the EF 28-300L is that the locking ring quit working a long time ago. How well it performs with the R has me thinking of sending it in to be repaired.

The RF 24-240 sounds appealing for traveling light. In fact it may be in my future. Let us know all about the RF 24-240 if you get one.