Canon 28-300mm, 70-200mm or what...?

[bunnymuncher]

Hi all,

Apologies in advance for my initial post being rather on the long side, but I'm in a bit of a quandry and need to pick your collective brains...

I mainly shoot aviation and wildlife subjects - all types at all ranges. At the moment I only use branded Canon lenses with my main lens being the 100-400mm f5.6; the high end nicely covered by a 500mm f4. Lower end is still a 28-135mm and this is the one I would like to replace as it's shots aren't up to the quality of the others. I'm disgruntled with it so much now that I use my 100mm macro in its place whenever I can...

For once, budget isn't a major problem, and I have considered buying 2-3 primes but I do not like changing lens unless I absolutely have too (and I refuse to carry a third body). Also, for air-to-air aviation work it is not always practical to carry and/or swap extra lenses.

I have narrowed my search down to the 28-300mm f5.6 IS, the 70-200mm f2.8 IS or the smaller 24-105mm f2.8 IS, but can anyone offer advice as to which one (or perhaps suggest an alternative approach). The 28-300mm attracts me the most due to it's 'one lens fits all' ability but I'm wary of any potential downsides to it.

I'm sure there is a good review/comparison out there somewhere but I've been unable to find one and do not have the time to spend hours browsing the forums (oh, so many forums...!).

Thanks!!!

ps. There's an extra large size bar of Dairy Milk in it for anyone who can help

 

[digitalfailure]

For me, it'd be the 70-200 f2.8 everytime

The larger ap at the long end is worth it, if you need to go a smidge longer, chuck on a 1.4x tc and it's almost 300mm with a stop extra to play with

 

[Darryn]

As you already have the 100-400 i wouldnt recommend a 70-200, due to only gaining 70-100, instead id say the 24-70f2.8 or 27-105f4IS. Depending on which you feel is more needed f2.8 or IS.