28-300 f3.5/5.6L

Have had this lens in mind for several years but did a search and very few comments the past 3 or 4 years. Is it not that good of a lens, too expensive, both, or not enough in circulation to comment?

I'd say its really expensive and not a lot of people use it. That's what I think though. It has a really nice range though!

Yes, it is very expensive but not considering the expense and heavy weight, would the IQ be as acceptable as having a 24 - 70, 70-200, and 400 and changing lenses often on a one trip shoot and still get very nice results?

Papaw wrote in post #11129280
Yes, it is very expensive but not considering the expense and heavy weight, would the IQ be as acceptable as having a 24 - 70, 70-200, and 400 and changing lenses often on a one trip shoot and still get very nice results?

Depending on how much you're willing to spend, I'd probably get a used 70-200 IS USM MkI and then a 2nd body for the 24-70. Or something like that.

I was just talking with my wife about this...

I would love to get it, but the problem is I don't think the IQ would be good enough for wedding photography (or at least compared to most of our current lenses ie, 85L 1.2 II, 70-200L 2.8 IS II and 100L 2.8 IS) and it would just leave us wanting.

However, if/when I get to go back to europe, I think that I will have to buy/rent this lens and use it exculsively (***maybe bring one prime for landscapes or something***)

Ben

The *only* advantage of that lens is that you don't have to change lenses. In every other way I can think of, it's suboptimal. One of the first things that will strike you is just how heavy it is. It's three times heavier than the 24-105 f/4 L IS, 70-200 f/4 L IS, and 1.4X TC combined. It's only 10% lighter than the 400mm f/4. And even with the TC, the 70-200+1.4X is higher quality than the superzoom. When the new 70-300 is out, I think it will make the comparison even more lopsided.

All that said, there really are some circumstances where the compromised weight, cost, and image quality are worth it to have a single zoom. I've heard that some PJ like it so they don't have to worry about missing a shot while they change lenses or switch to the second camera.

It has been a couple of years, but I recall a thread about this very lens and someone posted that they saw a Sports Illustrated photog at a basketball game using the 28-300. That would be pretty cool to have one lens for both ends of the court. On the other hand, he was probably triggering strobes in the attic for his lighting.

Thanks for the comments - they all make sense so I will probably skip this lens unless I find someone that wants to sell a used one very reasonable.