Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Canon EF 28-300mm F/3.5-5.6L Is USM  
User currently offlineBrick From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 1575 posts, RR: 8
Posted (7 years 8 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 6049 times:

Anyone using this lens? I'm thinking that is going to be my next lens purchase. Would love to hear what others have to say about it...


A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man...
15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineMaiznblu_757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5112 posts, RR: 50
Reply 1, posted (7 years 8 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 6020 times:

I havent used this lens but the reviews are good for the most part. The downfalls being mostly price related. I have used the now discontinued 35-350mm L. It offers good quality with a huge zoom range.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...p?product=217&sort=7&cat=27&page=3


User currently offlineBrick From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 1575 posts, RR: 8
Reply 2, posted (7 years 8 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 5962 times:

Yeah, I haven't figured out yet if I'm going to whore myself out to 100 fat chicks for $22 each or 10 really fat chicks for $220 each to pay for this.  Smile

The main things I am curious about...how is the sharpeness when fully zoomed? What happens when you put a 1.4 converter on it? I have the 100-400mm right now as my primary lens. I love it, but it is no longer a good match for the airports that I commonly shoot at since I went digital. It's also soft once I get above 350mm.

It'd be nice to put a lens on my camera and leave it on...



A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man...
User currently offlineDazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2830 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (7 years 8 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 5957 times:

Brick,

There's a review of the 28-300 L here:

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_28300_3556/index.htm

I was looking at getting one of these lenses but considering the price and some negative feedback, I didn't bother. Its a very expensive lens for what it is.

Darren



Equipment: 2x Canon EOS 50D; Sigma 10-20 EX DC HSM, 50-500 EX APO DG, Canon 24-105 f/4 L, Speedlite 430EX
User currently offlineCJA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (7 years 8 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 5937 times:

Quoting Brick (Reply 2):
What happens when you put a 1.4 converter on it?

Sadly you cant use a teleconverter with this lens only an extender.


I am not the best at photprocessing but all of my pictures on this site were taken using this lens apart from the MD-80.

I hate to disagree with Darren but I think its worth every penny and is at least as good as a 100-400 but perhaps not quite up to the 70-200mm. But if you want the flexibility this lens offers by having an 11x zoom you will not be disappointed. Its also dust and moisture proof.
regards

Chris Ashley
.


User currently offlineAero145 From Iceland, joined Jan 2005, 3071 posts, RR: 21
Reply 5, posted (7 years 8 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 5908 times:

Quoting CJA (Reply 4):
Sadly you cant use a teleconverter with this lens only an extender.

Hmm. Actually, you can try to put a Kenko or Tamron Tele Converter on the lens. But the Canon Extenders won't fit.


User currently offlineCJA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (7 years 8 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 5877 times:

Quoting Aero145 (Reply 5):
Hmm. Actually, you can try to put a Kenko or Tamron Tele Converter on the lens

Thats interesting, do you know that these will work?


User currently offlineJhribar From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (7 years 8 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 5864 times:

I use this lens as well and I am quite happy with it.
I travel a lot and sometimes I have to pack my suitcase very selective.
In that case this is the lens I will take with me.

It produces very good results for the 50-300mm range.
The 28-50mm range is good to go from F/7.1 I'd say.

Sure, the 70-200L will perform a bit better, but sometimes flexibility is priceless.

rgds,

Jeroen


User currently offlineJumboJim747 From Australia, joined Oct 2004, 2464 posts, RR: 45
Reply 8, posted (7 years 8 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 5859 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I had the pleasure of Meeting (Bailey) when he was here in Sydney last as i was struggling with my kens at the time he offered to lend me his lens which was the 28-300L i took a truck load of shots with it and have to say the quality and sharpness is just as good as the 100-400.
Here is some of the images i took on that day .
Thanks once again for the use of the lens Keven.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © JumboJim747



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © JumboJim747



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © JumboJim747



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © JumboJim747



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © JumboJim747



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © JumboJim747




Plenty more from that day but I'm sure this will help you see the quality .
Cheers



On a wing and a prayer
User currently offlineJavibi From Spain, joined Oct 2004, 1371 posts, RR: 42
Reply 9, posted (7 years 8 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 5814 times:

Quoting Brick (Reply 2):
I have the 100-400mm right now as my primary lens. I love it

28-300L = 2200 USD

30D + 24-105L = 2445 USD

30D + 17-40L = 1875 USD

30D + 24-70L = 2345 USD

Are you sure you want to buy the 28-300L instead of a second body AND a L series lens?

j

[Edited 2006-08-25 13:59:30]


"Be prepared to engage in constructive debate". Are YOU prepared?
User currently offlineAero145 From Iceland, joined Jan 2005, 3071 posts, RR: 21
Reply 10, posted (7 years 8 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 5793 times:

Quoting Javibi (Reply 9):
Are you sure you want to buy the 28-300L instead of a second body AND a L series lens?

I can't say it is very nice to hang around with two bodies. I did that last June, and it wasn't confortable.

-Aero145

PS: Javier, have you sold the 20D?  Wow!


User currently offlineJavibi From Spain, joined Oct 2004, 1371 posts, RR: 42
Reply 11, posted (7 years 8 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 5791 times:

Quoting Aero145 (Reply 10):
Javier, have you sold the 20D?

No, I now hang around with two bodies  Smile

j



"Be prepared to engage in constructive debate". Are YOU prepared?
User currently offlineINNflight From Austria, joined Apr 2004, 3765 posts, RR: 60
Reply 12, posted (7 years 8 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 5787 times:

Quoting Aero145 (Reply 10):
I can't say it is very nice to hang around with two bodies.



Quoting Jhribar (Reply 7):
sometimes flexibility is priceless.

 old 



Jet Visuals
User currently offlineMaiznblu_757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5112 posts, RR: 50
Reply 13, posted (7 years 8 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 5765 times:

Quoting Aero145 (Reply 10):
I can't say it is very nice to hang around with two bodies. I did that last June, and it wasn't comfortable.

Well, with the 500mm, I wouldn't have it any other way. You dont put that lens on the camera, you put the camera on the lens. Two bodies is the only way to go. I attended two airshows and suddenly it struck me with a vengeance  alert  "You need another camera body!"


User currently offlineUA935 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 610 posts, RR: 6
Reply 14, posted (7 years 8 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 5759 times:

Two bodies is deffinatley the way forward.

I am just waiting to see what Canon release in the one series next.

Simon



Live every second like you mean it
User currently offlineAero145 From Iceland, joined Jan 2005, 3071 posts, RR: 21
Reply 15, posted (7 years 8 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 5752 times:

Quoting Maiznblu_757 (Reply 13):
Well, with the 500mm, I wouldn't have it any other way. You dont put that lens on the camera, you put the camera on the lens. Two bodies is the only way to go. I attended two airshows and suddenly it struck me with a vengeance alert "You need another camera body!"

What about having one body with the 50-500? Big grin

Just joking. Yes, you need more than two bodies for an airshow with aircraft from (for example) the sizes An-225 to C152.  Smile

Nevertheless, the 28-300 is told to be pretty good, but I don't need it. Maybe it is for you, Brick, but it's pretty heavy. Heavier than the 70-200 2.8 IS AFAIK.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Canon EF 28-300mm F/3.5-5.6L Is USM And EF 70-300m posted Wed Mar 24 2004 12:24:35 by Joge
Lense Thoughts: Canon EF 100-400mm F/2.8L Is USM posted Thu Jun 29 2006 21:56:02 by Aero145
Canon EF-S 17-85MM F4-5.6 Is USM posted Wed Jul 13 2005 18:12:23 by Scottieprecord
Canon 28-300 F3.5-5.6L Is USM posted Mon Apr 17 2006 19:57:15 by AirbusfanYYZ
Canon EF 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Is USM Review Wanted posted Thu Apr 6 2006 12:01:46 by Deaphen
New Canon EF 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Is USM posted Wed Oct 19 2005 00:12:17 by TRVYYZ
Canon EF 75-300mm F/4-5.6 Is USM posted Wed Mar 16 2005 01:57:38 by APFPilot1985
Canon EF 75-300mm F/4-5.6 Is USM posted Tue Jul 9 2002 14:59:50 by Granite
Canon EF 28-105mm F/3.5-4.5 II USM: For Airplanes? posted Fri May 12 2006 20:31:17 by DLX737200
Canon EF 28-135mm Is posted Tue Apr 1 2003 03:35:00 by Siggi757