'Soft' canon 28-300l? any ideas?

I've just bought a new 28-300l and from what i can figure out its just not as sharp as i would have imagined.

The first shot is from my 10 22 canon and th second is form the L.
I know its not really supposed to be use for these kind of shots but all of my test shots have showed the same thing.

Now i am fairly new to the whole camera thing but if you could give me some constructive feedback that be great.

Cheers.

Hmm, not sure, but it looks like the second one is slightly out of focus. I'd try testing it on a white sheet of paper with black text and use the center-point for focusing. I'd suspect that a zoom with a 10x range would have some softness.

It's a superzoom

pendulum15 wrote in post #5787641
It's a superzoom

so...?

smorter wrote in post #5787685
so...?

You can't expect THAT much of a lens that does a 10x zoom ratio, even if it is a L

Oh I see what you mean

I used the 28-300L though but it was better than that. It's decently sharp, much sharper than sample shows above, but it looks like it's not focused on the plant in the sample above

Do the chart test!!

The 28-300 at 135mm

I think you should execute your test/comparison with another lens at 135mm of focal lenght. It doesn't make sense to execute the comparison with an ultra wide angle, that is positioned at a few cm from your target.

Personally I would be quite happy with that from a 10x zoom like that
compare to this
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …&SampleComp=0&F​LI=6&API=0

Here's the result from the test. Its not so much the focus is out its just not very sharp overall!

I guess i just thought that when you buy an L you get a sharp lens, could just be this one but i dont think ill be keeping it for long.

Sad to say my old sigma 18 200 is much sharper for a fifth of the price.

The Canon 28-300L cannot be directly compared to a Sigma 18-200. One was made to cover a FF image and the other was not. I did use the Canon for a brief period in the past and while I agree that the images sometimes need more aggressive sharpening than images from more conservative lenses, do bear in mind that it's a lot of focal length in one package.

Yes, it's not very discreet, but imagine putting that on a FF camera and hardly needing to change lenses except for low light or macro shots...unless you often like to shoot very wide or very tele also. But 28-300mm is a superb focal length range. People will be stuck changing lenses when you've already framed the shot and got your photo.

Given the opportunity I might actually buy this lens again, however the weight is really a put-off. It's a very nice focal length range for 'walkaround', but I wouldn't want to be walking around with this lens attached to my 1-series camera all day.

The 10-22 is a very sharp lens and it doesn't surprise me at all that it's sharper than the 28-300L.

The 28-300 is for people to get decent quality over a very large zoom range, and that's about it. There's no way to make it tack sharp throughout the range...at least not with the current optical technology.

One other thing. Yes, many (if not most) of the L lenses are outstanding optics. However, that does not mean that all Ls are the best lenses available in their focal length. In many cases, there are far cheaper alternatives that are as good if not better optically. With an L, you will get good quality optics (in some cases the best), good build quality, fast autofocus, and a red ring. There's nothing that says that non-Ls can't be just as sharp or sharper, or the like.

Looks reasonably sharp to me, all things considered. If anything there's a lack of contrast in bad lighting. Try some curves/USM massaging and it'll surely look a lot better.

I got mine 6 weeks ago and I thought it was a bit soft for an L, but as all here have already commented, it's alot to get into a lens. Mine is very sharp at 250-300, so I consider it my telephoto that can focus less than 2 feet from a subject. If I want sharp at the wider angles I use my 16-35 L or my 24-70 L. Big difference. However, for walking around with the family and just bumming around with my camera, the 28-300 L is good enough. I really enjoy the lens and will never get rid of it.