Canon 28-300 v Canon 70-300 + Canon 24-105 pairing. Opinions please.

digital

digital

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,180
Edit My Images
No
After asking a question on another thread I've come across the Canon 28-300 f3.5-5.6 L IS and have been left wondering if that would do the same job (walkabout travel lens: usually wildlife and landscape - I have a Sigma 150-600 for longer distance wildlife) as a Canon 70-300 (which I don't currently have!) and my Canon 24-105.

Anyone have any experience? Is it as sharp as the other two?
 
digital said:
Canon 70-300 (which I don't currently have!) and my Canon 24-105.
Click to expand...

I've the 24-105L lens and am very happy with it.

I did have the 70-300IS lens and was pleased with the results I got, but I upgraded to the 70-200L series and am very happy with it OR are you looking at the 70-300L lens ? I've not used one yet, but it is on my list to check out / ? purchase in the future as it's a great lens and gets a very good following on here...
 
I'm looking at the 28-300 IS L v the pairing of a 70-300 IS L and 24-105 IS L.
 
I run with 24-105 and the 70-300 USM L which works well as a combination the 70-300 is light and fast pin sharp used on my 6D and 7D
 
In general terms, all zooms are a compromise and the greater the range, the more of a compromise they are. Personally, I'd stick with the 2 lens option (or even live without the 105-150 range) over the single lens if image quality is more important than convenience. Of course, if budget allows, get the 28-300 as a travel lens and the 70-300 for when IQ is more important!
 
mazdaman said:
I run with 24-105 and the 70-300 USM L which works well as a combination the 70-300 is light and fast pin sharp used on my 6D and 7D
Click to expand...

That's good to know: thanks.

The big question, though, is how I would fare with solely the 28-300 rather than the pairing. No need to change lenses but 4mm missing from the short end and is it as sharp as the other two?
 
Nod said:
Personally, I'd stick with the 2 lens option (or even live without the 105-150 range) over the single lens if image quality is more important than convenience.
Click to expand...

Thanks, but I'm not sure what you mean by 'live without the 105-150 range'. I'm trying to decide on if a 28-300 will work for me in comparison to a 24-105 and 70-300 pairing so I'm not sure where the reference to '105' comes in...

Nod said:
Of course, if budget allows, get the 28-300 as a travel lens and the 70-300 for when IQ is more important!
Click to expand...

Is there a significant difference in IQ between the 28-300 and 70-300?
 
You say that you currently have the 24-105 and a 150-500, leaving the gap. If you can live without the 105-150 range, there's no NEED to spend any money at the moment. (WANT is a completely different matter - most of us suffer from GAS from time to time!)

Almost certainly a difference. How significant is very subjective. Ideally, visit a decent retailer, have a play with the options (take your body and a memory card - maybe even a laptop to have a good look at the results) and see what YOU think of the IQ from them. Having played with their stock though, buy the kit from them - if people treat retailers as showrooms for internet purchases, they'll vanish and where will people try kit then?
 
I did mention that I have a 150-600, which was probably a mistake to do so, but I was trying to head off comments that 300 wasn't long enough for wildlife.

The question is around the 28-300 by itself, as opposed to carrying a 24-105 and 70-300.

Knowing whether or not the 28-300 and 70-300 are close to each other in IQ would help in knowing whether or not it's worth seeing them in the 'flesh'.
 
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-28-300mm-f-3.5-5.6-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

It has its issues, but the reviewer points out this lens as an ideal travel lens for the one lens option if you don't mind the price tag and weight. Read the review, but as Nod said, do you really need it with you current setup. The 70-300mm IS is a great budget lens, although in the tamron 70-300mm VC it has a challenger. Of course there's the 70-300mm L which is definitely a step up in quality and performance and although it doesn't have spectacular reviews there's the 70-300mm DO lens which would be perfect as a travel lens despite its flaws because of its size and weight, although hefty price tag. The question is do you really need this lens when you already have 2 lenses that cover most of that focal range and more.
 
Thanks for the link. It helps and, though not ideal to have to involve it with such an expensive lens, Lightroom should help with some of the criticisms

I'm looking at the 70-300 L and 28-300 L despite already having the 150-600 as it's not really the best lens to be carrying around in quite a few of the locations I'm going to be in (Dubai, Vietnam, Cambodia, Cape Town). Think size, weight and attractiveness to undesirables! Having said that, I was also thinking the 28-300 might be a good second body partner for the 150-600 on safari in Namibia and Botswana.

A lot of things to take into consideration!
 
digital said:
I was also thinking the 28-300 might be a good second body partner for the 150-600 on safari in Namibia and Botswana.
Click to expand...

Looking at it a different way from your example - do you need the 28-70 range for this safari ?

You've already got the 24-105 and you've got the long end covered with your 150-600, I'd go for the 70-300L
 
A good point, but I was thinking that with two bodies the 28-300 would give me cover from close in and going out, and the 150-600 from far out to getting closer. If you see what I mean.

With the 28-300 on my 5D3, and the 150-600 on my 7D2 I would have even more flexibility.

Away from safaris and other long distance wildlife scenarios, I'm wondering if the 28-300 would cut it as my walkaround rather than the 24-105 I normally use.

As above, so much to take into consideration!
 
i went the 24-70 and 70-200 and 50-500 and got rid of my 24-105
 
I have the super cheap Tamron 28~300 on one of my 5D bodies.

I bought it out of curiosity (it was less than £80 delivered) and find the usefulness outweighs its obvious imperfactions. My guess is that the Canon product will be noticeably better but, if you're a pixel peeper, I'd stay away from this type of thing. Here's a shot to give you an idea of what it produces...

26755875096_a5c36a1ef0_b.jpg
 
I have the 24-105mm L,70-300mm L and a Sigma 150-600mm C, and these perform exceptionally well on a 6D, the 70-300L is often described as a great travel/walkabout lens its light,quick and pin sharp, I toyed with the idea of getting the 28-300mm but the reviews put me off when comparing it on various sites plus the fact that its over double the weight of the 70-300mm L didnt bode well either
 
Thanks. I really am struggling!

The 70-300L is fixed aperture, lighter and less expensive, but the 28-300L has the additional flexibility at the short end that would be useful as a walkabout. I wonder if Lightroom might ameliorate the (slight?) optical issues?
 
Just to tidy things up... I've compromised (every lens, every body is a compromise!) and gone for flexibility with the 28-300L. Time will tell, but the ability to use it as a walkabout and avoid having to swap lenses in locations where dust (and on other trips, moisture) will be an issue has won me over.

It's heavy, but lighter than my Sigma 150-600; it's more expensive than the 70-200L, but I have the cash; no doubt some of the images may be visiting Lightroom for tweaking, but I have the time.

The only real problem is it's white, so Management may well notice it!

Thanks all for the help: appreciated!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top