dahonu wrote in post #3739269
I have a quick question.. other than the obvious extra 400mm on the 100-400 its has an f/4.5-5.6 were as the 28-300mm has f/3.5-5.6.
is the 100-400 lighter ? prob not by much. or os it that the 100-400 is just that much more clear sharper and crisp then the 28-300.
am i missing something?
hope this made sence LOL
thanks for your time and honest opinion
It is a little lighter, at about 3 pounds, but it is actually balanced very well, you always support it at the right point for weight and balance, hence is easy to handhold, and for a zoom in its range and aperture, there isn't anything that can beat it. Fast USM, IS, sharp, and one of my favourites: shift zoom, which can be combined with manual focusing if so required, because of the placement of the focus and zoom rings, hence very fast at zooming and/or manual focusing, if so required.
The 28-300 is not a bad lens, but it is a compromise, extremely heavy, and less easy to handle. You don't always want the weight of it on a body, IMO. It is easier to have the 24-105 for general shooting, and a separate lens for nature and wildlife. The 24-105 has a very, very nice reach, actually, on a FF camera, from good wide angle (more so than the 28-300), great for landscapes to indoor shots and architecture, to a length that is great for all kinds of short/medium tele shots, i.e., portraits, slightly compressed landscapes, candid shots, architectural details.
And the 100-400 starts where the 24-105 stops. Both have IS, which is another plus. It makes the 100-400 truly handholdable, and adds a 3 stop tripod for those museum and church shots, or when dusk starts setting in.
If you consider te 100-400 too large, you could also go for the 70-300 IS, or the 70-300 DO IS, maybe with Kenk converter.
Kind regards, Wim