Anybody own a 28-300is L zoom?

What do you think of it?

Check out https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=256450

'Coons, thanks!

This is a good shot to give an idea of the relative size of the lens, at 28mm and extended all the way to 300mm. The comparison lens is the 70-200L zoom:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

My wife and I own this lens and here are a few things I've come to terms with.

1. It's heavy as sin!
2. Great lens as long as you have good light
3. I hate the Push/Pull mechanism after being so used to the smoothness of my internal zoom on the 70-200L f/2.8
4. Focus isnt nearly as fast as I'd like
5. Can not use extenders on it and get any good results.
6. Did I mention it's heavy?

If I had it to do over again, I'd probably save my money and have bought a 24-105L or a something similar and just not had the range the 300mm offers

Or deal with a Non-L and go with a smaller walk-around lens and had a load of money in my pocket. Now if Canon could figure out how to turn this lens into a fixed f/2.8, I'd probably own two and they would never come off our camera bodies. I've wrote to them a few times with comments like this, but have yet to see any results.

Are you Listening Canon?

Pat, thanks for the candid rating. It's looking like that's basically a consensus view of the lens. I think I've about decided to save some bucks and get the 70-200L IS, and pick up an extender down the road. The slow f-stop and the slow autofocus, along with the incompatability with extenders, is the deal-breaker.

Grazie, all.

28 to 300 is some range. What did you want take at the 300 range.

The 70-300 is usm, is good value.

John

Peerie; H.S. Soccer and wildlife. But the 2.8 bottom end on the 70-200L is the bottom line, I think. That and the fact that it'll work with extenders.

Whoa! Just saw your location. You must see some beautiful scenery in the Cotswolds.

Yes, it is nice in this location.

For wildlife, you need as long a lens as you can afford!!! What is the point of paying the extra for a 2.8 then using a tc?

Good luck.

John

Peerie, my understanding is that, first, with the lens at 200 on a digital camera, it's actually around 300mm, maybe a bit more. If I go to a 1.4 extender, I only lose one stop in speed, to 4.0 and I would have 280mm but digitally, something like 400. AND I would save around $600.

As I said, there is always the bottom line of removing the tlc and having the relatively fast 2.8 for the full range of an "L" lens. A happy situation, I think.

I'm also reading that with the 28-300, you rather quickly go from the 3.5 at the 28 end, to the substantially slower 5.6. Apparently, it
happens even before you get out to 100mm. I'm not interested in getting into laser-sharp wildlife photo competitions, I just want good, pleasing, shots.

Oh, what the hell, I might as well 'fess up. I live near a South Carolina swamp, and the other day, I thought I heard an Ivory Bill double-knocking out that "50K! 50K!" . It was really beautiful.

If I had to choose between the 28-300L and the 70-200L f/2.8, I'd pick the 70-200 all day long.

Granted, you lose ALOT on your wide end of things, but you make up for it in sharpness and speed of focus.

And you'll save a ton in price with just throwing on a 1.4 or even a 2x TC

Good Luck