Help! Canon EF 28-300mm F3.5/5.6 L IS USM

TinaC

TinaC

Suspended / Banned
Messages
7,694
Name
Tina
Edit My Images
Yes
Over the last weekend someone whom I thought of as a friend let me play with one of these :bang:

Now I'm in a quandary. I'm financially poor but even on my lil laptop I can see the quality on my snaps (don't consider myself a photographer yet). Do I sell the house, live in the car and buy one of these on the basis that I'll never need another lens or do Sigma do something similar in range that enables me to have a home? :shrug:

I enjoy shooting landscapes and trying to catch birds and other wild life. :baby:
 
That's a hell of a big thing to have welded to the front of your camera.

Sigma do a 28-300mm but it's only a relatively cheapo thing although good for the money IMVHO, I used to have one and it made a great holiday and day out lens. These days there are 17/18-200/250mm lenses for APS-C at relatively reasonable prices that get good reviews.

Some think that the lower the zoom range the fewer the design compromises and that you'd probably get better image quality from a number of lenses covering that zoom range.
 
woof woof said:
That's a hell of a big thing to have welded to the front of your camera.

Sigma do a 28-300mm but it's only a relatively cheapo thing although good for the money IMVHO, I used to have one and it made a great holiday and day out lens. These days there are 17/18-200/250mm lenses for APS-C at relatively reasonable prices that get good reviews.

Some think that the lower the zoom range the fewer the design compromises and that you'd probably get better image quality from a number of lenses covering that zoom range.
Click to expand...

I understand the concept of the lower zoom range fewer compromises and so better quality but rally don't like changing lens 'in the field'. Am willing to look at lighter lens as I agree that the L series it is a great body building tool!
 
Maybe one of those 18-250mm lenses might be worth a look?
 
TinaC said:
Over the last weekend someone whom I thought of as a friend let me play with one of these :bang:

Now I'm in a quandary. I'm financially poor but even on my lil laptop I can see the quality on my snaps (don't consider myself a photographer yet). Do I sell the house, live in the car and buy one of these on the basis that I'll never need another lens or do Sigma do something similar in range that enables me to have a home? :shrug:

I enjoy shooting landscapes and trying to catch birds and other wild life. :baby:
Click to expand...


From what I have seen 400mm is a better lens length for bird photography and the need for a great technique as well, so given your limited experience (your words) I would tend towards getting a lens for landscapes which you say you also enjoy. Conventional wisdom says you need a wide angle, personally I dont hold with that, so I would if I were you get a 50m 1.8 at about £70, which despite its price/build quality delivers stunning results (even nearly wide open) and see what a wonderful little lens it is and how it improves your images (quality wise) add to that it will really help you develop as a photographer.
Additionally you may find the 400d then limits you and will want a better body, the AF on the 400d is fine for relatively still objects but birds, particularly in flight will just dissapoint you as they will be perfectly sharp but out of focus and look 'soft' anyway. Currently the 7D seems to rock for bird photography so if that's the way you want to go in the future it would make sense to think about a longer zoom and a seperate lens for landscape stuff which of course completely contradicts what you have asked for :)
Matt
 
MatBin said:
From what I have seen 400mm is a better lens length for bird photography and the need for a great technique as well, so given your limited experience (your words) I would tend towards getting a lens for landscapes which you say you also enjoy. Conventional wisdom says you need a wide angle, personally I dont hold with that, so I would if I were you get a 50m 1.8 at about £70, which despite its price/build quality delivers stunning results (even nearly wide open) and see what a wonderful little lens it is and how it improves your images (quality wise) add to that it will really help you develop as a photographer.
Additionally you may find the 400d then limits you and will want a better body, the AF on the 400d is fine for relatively still objects but birds, particularly in flight will just dissapoint you as they will be perfectly sharp but out of focus and look 'soft' anyway. Currently the 7D seems to rock for bird photography so if that's the way you want to go in the future it would make sense to think about a longer zoom and a seperate lens for landscape stuff which of course completely contradicts what you have asked for :)
Matt
Click to expand...

Thanks for your suggestions, I'd already discovered that my birds would have to be stationary(ish) and that flying is out of the question! :bonk: Better hide the news from OH that not only do I lust after silly lens but if I learn enough I may need to upgrade my camera :help:
 
I feel your pain :bang:

I love that lens.. and will eb hiring it again in the summer..
In the hope that that weeks shoot will help go towards paying for a lens of my own. It's immense!!

(Bloody heavy though)
 
Tamron has one with the same range 28-300 which has image stabilzer as well and costs 3 times less than Canon. It won't have the same build quality but for the price/quality I think it is much better value.




TinaC said:
Over the last weekend someone whom I thought of as a friend let me play with one of these :bang:

Now I'm in a quandary. I'm financially poor but even on my lil laptop I can see the quality on my snaps (don't consider myself a photographer yet). Do I sell the house, live in the car and buy one of these on the basis that I'll never need another lens or do Sigma do something similar in range that enables me to have a home? :shrug:

I enjoy shooting landscapes and trying to catch birds and other wild life. :baby:
Click to expand...
 
Ramaz said:
Tamron has one with the same range 28-300 which has image stabilzer as well and costs 3 times less than Canon. It won't have the same build quality but for the price/quality I think it is much better value.
Click to expand...

I have a Tamron on loan from a friend and don't like the results I'm getting. my ignorance perhaps but the results are fuzzy and i got better ones from the BEAST in spite of it's weight and my poor ability. :shrug:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top