Best superzoom lens for full frame cameras

Rooster

Rooster

Suspended / Banned
Messages
685
Name
John
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm off to the far east in a couple of weeks and naturally I'm taking my camera with me. However it's full frame and the L class lenses I need for a good coverage (Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L and 70-200 f/2.8 L) weigh a ton. What is a decent superzoom lens which will cover that sort of range without too much drop in quality? Whenever I see superzoom reviews they seem to be for cropped sensor cameras as opposed to full frame. Does one even exist?
 
The obvious option would be Canon 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS. But that’s something like £2,500.

Tamron do a 28-300 in Canon EF fit at a more reasonable £600.

No comments on quality but a couple of options for you.
 
I use the 24-120 f/4 VR but that's not particularly long and is also a Nikkor...
 
This is how I got into m4/3 but if I were in your shoes I'd look at the EF 24-105 L f/4 and the EF 70 - 300 f/4-5.6 IS USM. Both are full frame, the 24-105 is very good and the 70-300 is pretty good as well. A superzoom on full frame is bound to deliver disappointing results.

Just had a look at your profile - if you still have the 17-40 L f/4 I'd bring that and I would look at acquiring the EF 70 - 300 f/4-5.6 IS USM for about £170-£200. There is a MkII version of the 70-300 as well but that will set you back about £400.

I would also bring the 50 f/1.4 or the 40 f.2.8 for low light.
 
Eloise said:
The obvious option would be Canon 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS. But that’s something like £2,500.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure a lens that weigh a ton and half is an appropriate choice given OP's concern about weight. ;)

The EF 70 - 300 is a good suggestion.
 
24/70 & 70/200 both f4 are a lot lighter without a drop in quality. Plus a 1.4 extender?
Matt
 
KTC said:
I'm not sure a lens that weigh a ton and half is an appropriate choice given OP's concern about weight. ;)
Click to expand...
Probably true (I’m not so familiar with Canon lenses) ... I was more answering the “Does one even exist?” part.
 
Canon 70-300 usm DO if you can find a good used one with nothing wrong with it.

The were £1700 new but not classed as L lens and are £400 odd now used I think
 
I'm not sure you'll get near L lens quality from a superzoom but years ago I had a Sigma 28-300mm which I used on my Canon 300D. It was even then a pretty unremarkable lens except for its zoom range but I took some of my favorite shots with it. For whole images rather than pixel peeping and for flexibility I think that these lenses can make a lot of sense for holidays and days out but note that the aperture range can be limiting as the light levels drop.

Actually rather than go down the superzoom route I take a quality camera with a fast prime (probably my Sony A7 with 35mm f2.8) and a more compact camera with a zoom for the wider and longer shots. At the moment my second holiday camera choice is a Panasonic TZ100 which is a 1" sensor camera and has a 25-250mm equivalent zoom.

Something like a used Panasonic (or Olympus) MFT camera and superzoom lens might be worth thinking about too.
 
Last edited:
You can get a superzoom for your focal lengths, but it'll either be IQ compromised or weight compromised.

The bottom line is that there's no such thing as a free lunch (you suspect this but didn't really want to give in)

The obvious solution is to buy the f4 versions of those lenses, you'll save a little in weight and virtually nothing in IQ.
 
I've just thought of something else...

I've come to value silent shooting for occasions when the sound of a shutter wouldn't be appropriate so if looking at a second camera that could be something to think about.
 
Id seriously consider a mirrorless system if you want to travel and are concerned about weight.

You could probably get a S/H starter kit for the price of a good quality superzoom
 
Id start doing my homework instead and find out everything about the destination, photoopportunities what kind of work great photographers have done undersimilar conditions, think hard about what kind of images id like to get and then narrow down to one zoom e.g. 24-105 or a pair of primes instead of compromising the format choice with a subpar lens. The other solution could be a great compact or compact apsc system camera which will Ofcource be a compromise itself but the be a lot more compact and way lighter.
 
The answer is none, if there is and it's cheap we would all be buying it and you would have known about it before you bought the 24-70.

I'd always said that if there is a lens that does 24-200 at 1.4 and it's not stupidly large like the 1200mm I would buy it even if it cost £20,000.

The fact is that it's just not possible.
 
Personally having both a Canon FF and a Fuji I would buy a used Fuji XT-1 and an 18-135 lens ( in FF terms 28-200 ish ) , which you will probably get for the price of a superzoom and sell them when I got back
 
Look at the Sony RX10 models. The mk 1 will do with its stunning 24-200 fov and f2.8.

Silent leaf shutter too.

I've got A3+ prints from it at 200mm that are very detailed.
 
Good suggestions, thanks.

I don't fancy investing in a new system such as the Fuji at this stage, so looks like it's:

a) suck it up and carry my big lenses around, what else do I go to the gym for? Also I'm hoping to hire a model and shoot on the Hong Kong waterfront.
b) Tamron 28-300
c) take the light primes only, great IQ but very limiting

Might get a used Tamron then, I can pretty much get my money back if I don't want to keep it.
 
TBH the words superzoom & drop in quality are almost inseparable. Sigma made a slightly bulky 28-200 that I've had a couple of copies of and found it creates usable images, and the best part is that they're only around £70-£80 on ebay - I can provide more info and example images if you want to know more. In your situation I'd probably look at the Canon 24-120 (or similar) that seems to have a good reputation plus a 50-85mm prime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top