28-300L

Seems like this and a fast prime would make a sweet travel kit. I have read all the reviews. Can someone who uses this lens chime in? What are your thoughts? I know there aren't too many folks out there using it, but, it's $2K+ so......I already have a pretty much complete kit, but wondering what it's like to be out there with soooo much zoom, the opportunities seem endlless.

I couldn't tell you how many times I have considered buying it for an all purpose travel lens but it's just too big & heavy to be what I want to carry all day; so I have done the next best thing (for me anyway) which is a 40D and Sigma 18-200 OS lens which may not be every bit as sharp as the Canon, but it's just not that much worse either. The total cost is similar, but the total weight is much less & it fits a smaller bag.

As he has a 70-200 f/2.8 IS, and uses an APS-H camera, I guess he wouldn't mind the weight of the 28-300.

A very good copy of the 28-300 is a daharned good lens!

Yeah, I've done searches on this and many other sites and find that most who actually use this lens love it, those who put it down generally haven't used it, say you might as well buy a P&S, that 5.6 is too small or that is is too expensive. While I agree with these statements I also know that when travelling (especially in south China) the conditions are always changing and there are so many shots near and far, add to that the weather seal. I'm a big guy and am used to lugging around my gear, hell, I carry it just about everywhere I go. If I could bring the 28-300, my 17-40 and perhaps my 35, seems for most situations I'd be able to leave the 28-300 on the mkIII. Can always fill flash with the 580II
Hell, there'd be room left in my bag for a bottle of water and some snacks

Sounds like your sold. Just place your order


I keep looking at this lens. I really love my primes, and the IQ of smaller zooms, so I keep wondering if I'd be happy with the 28-300. We're planning a few trips this year, one to Alaska, where I want to lighten my carry load, but need a lot of range. 28 probably isn't wide enough for some landscapes, and 300 isn't long enough for wildlife. So, I'm not sure this lens will help. I'll probably stick with my current plan, 100-400 + 17-40 + 24-105 + a fast prime. It would be nice to get down to 2 or 3 lenses, but I just don't know.

Naw......not sold yet, your thoughts are very similar to mine, but, I am very curious. perhaps you'd like me to give it a test drive so you have one more brain to pick regarding this lens?
Like you I just would like to (not) have to lug around my whole kit everywhere
Elan Remford has one for sale on the board, he's an awesome seller and the gear is brand spanking new from that guy with receipts and warranty, very tempting

I believe that Belmondo had one and sold it a year or so ago.

For FF body, this is a good one-lens-for-all lens. It will NOT be a good travel lens because of its size and eight. I would much rather to have 24-105IS + 70-300IS. Both together is smaller, lighter, cheaper, brand in better. The first is faster and wider.

For 1.6x body, you lose wide. I just don't see one advantage of it. One of my friend has one for his 20D. I found him using his 17-85IS more often then this $2K lens. I guess it also depend on one's need.

eel

Yea I thought about this guy too... Way too big to carry around as an all around and overall I have found its not a very popular lens because of its size, weight and price.

On the off chance you would like to see samples from the small & light counterpart I went with I have downloadable full file samples here. (as well as many from other combinations).
http://picasaweb.googl​e.com/cicopo/LensSampl​es

Guess I should rent one and take it on a hike for a day and see what I think. The sigma and whatnot are not an option for me with the mkIII. I understand having two lenses like was suggested, and I do have two, well, more than enough lenses. But, if I can get L quality in an all in one that will do the job of two, then......maybe

A buddy of mine who shoots the Detroit Red Wings uses that lens alot with his MkIII. The results he gets with that lens are fantastic!!!

I wonder if this lens is really good? I don't hear much people talking about this lens. I was interested in this lens at a certain point in time, but didn't really like the push and pull.

I got to kinda like the "push-pull" on the 100-400, Intertesting that a hockey guy would shoot with one, I hear hockey usually rquires a fast lens, but I suppose with 3200 and up on the mkIII the small aperture isn't such a hinderence

Personally I just can't see the 28-300 as a good travel lens. It weighs more than my 24-105L and 70-300 IS put together. Why would I lug this tank around when two smaller lenses cover the range with better IQ?

Also, when I travel I tend to need the 100-300 range only occasionally. Splitting into two lenses like the 24-105 + 70-300 means often I can leave the 70-300 home and just have a one lens kit.

Finally....also do not discount the difference between 24mm and 28mm. On a travel lens this is probably more important than having all that extra reach on the long end.