28-300L come back

With the higher ISO capabilities of newer cameras and post processing it seems the old 28-300L slider would be a good walk around and event lens as long as the 5# weight of the lens could be tolerated. Does anyone think otherwise?

I have the 35-350mm L (the 28-300's older brother), and it has proven to be a great, all-purpose walk-around lens. I've taken it to 2 air shows and countless trips to the zoo (w/ my now 8mo. old son), and I don't feel like I'm sacrificing too much by way of total quality for the added gains in versatility.

If the 28-300mm were cheaper, I'd upgrade to one in a second to get the IS addition!

Papaw wrote in post #11275464
With the higher ISO capabilities of newer cameras and post processing it seems the old 28-300L slider would be a good walk around and event lens as long as the 5# weight of the lens could be tolerated. Does anyone think otherwise?

It's really heavy at 1.7kg and you are restricted to some pretty slow apertures down at the wide end compared to available competitive lenses in that range like the 24-70. It's also really expensive.

MFD is 0.7m across the entire zoom range which is great on the telephoto side but inadequate on the wide end. Compare with the 24-70 at 0.38m and you see it is nearly twice as long.

Overall a lens like the 28-300 or 35-350 is great for some people who really need a all in one lens (think PJ work) but I can't see it being beloved by hobbiests looking for a vacation lens.

Honestly, I can't understand why people go on about it being such a heavy lens. The original 70-200 2.8L IS is 3.5lbs and the 28-300 is 3.7lbs.

If it wasn't so damn expensive I'd probably own one also.

It's not the weight - it's the speed.

If they made a 24-200mm f/4L IS USM, with internal zoom/focus and full weather sealing (without the need for a filter) as their L-series superzoom, it'd probably be much more popular as a one-lens solution, either as a walkaround (for those who don't mind the weight) or to take into harsh environments.

20DNewbie wrote in post #11277436
Honestly, I can't understand why people go on about it being such a heavy lens. The original 70-200 2.8L IS is 3.5lbs and the 28-300 is 3.7lbs.

Probably because people keep talking about these lenses as 'walkabout' convenvience lenses. A rebel with 18-55 and 55-250 is actually a lot more convenient as regards weight.

I use both a 70-200/2.8 and 100-400 which are almost as heavy as the 28-300 and they are not something I want dangling from my neck when I'm just wandering about doing things other than photography.

If you are shooting an event where f5.6 is acceptable, then just get a 7D and an 18-200 IS. I'm honestly not seeing a difference in quality here: http://www.the-digital-picture.com …&SampleComp=0&F​LI=4&API=1

JeffreyG wrote in post #11277645
Probably because people keep talking about these lenses as 'walkabout' convenvience lenses. A rebel with 18-55 and 55-250 is actually a lot more convenient as regards weight.

I use both a 70-200/2.8 and 100-400 which are almost as heavy as the 28-300 and they are not something I want dangling from my neck when I'm just wandering about doing things other than photography.

True.

Whenever I go light it's either my rangefinder or my E-P2.

20DNewbie wrote in post #11277790
True.

Whenever I go light it's either my rangefinder or my E-P2.

GF-1 for me, but quite similar.

To each his own....but I have actually found plenty of good occasions to use my 35-350mm on my cropper.

Appreciate all the comments and plan on watching for a bargain.