Thoughts on Canon EF 28-300mm f3.5-5.6L IS USM

[Gritty]

So I have just found out Canon do a EF 28-300mm f3.5-5.6L IS USM and I am thinking this would make an excellent replacement for my old Tamron 18-270mm f3.5-6.3 VC Piezo Drive.

There arnt many reviews out there apart from it is
a) Heavy at 1670g
b) not so sharp

I use my Tamron as a carry round does it all lens and also use it for landscape/seascape photography on a tripod.
Soooo here’s my quandary! Do I buy a 70-200mm F4L IS USM & either a 24-70mm f4L IS USM or a 24-105mm f4L IS USM?
I have recently started swapping over to L lenses on my 80d as I have found them to be much better quality and much sharper.
All thoughts and criticism much appreciated folks or alternatives.

 

[woof woof]

You will be aware that 28mm is not very wide on APS-C. Personally I'd keep the 18-270mm.

Apart from that years ago I had a Sigma 28-300mm. It was I suppose by modern standards or even the standards of the day optically a rather ho-hum lens with a rather limiting aperture range but the zoom range certainly made it a very flexible day out and holiday lens. So, I can see the appeal of these lenses. But I'd keep the Tamron.

 

[Gritty]

You will be aware that 28mm is not very wide on APS-C. Personally I'd keep the 18-270mm.

Apart from that years ago I had a Sigma 28-300mm. It was I suppose by modern standards or even the standards of the day optically a rather ho-hum lens with a rather limiting aperture range but the zoom range certainly made it a very flexible day out and holiday lens. So, I can see the appeal. But I'd keep the Tamron.

Hi woof woof, I have a canon 80D currently but will be getting a full frame in the near future.

 

[woof woof]

OK.

I'd have a long hard think about what I expected from a lens with such a long zoom range and fairly limiting maximum apertures. I think I'd still see such a lens as a lens to use in good light on days out and holidays and rely on other lenses for low light and/or higher image quality. Looked at like that I might just seek out another Sigma 28-300mm at just over £100 on evil bay. I still look at pictures I took with that lens in 2004.

Tamron made a similar lens and they're on evil bay too. I've no doubt the Canon super zoom is better, but if it's worth the extra money over these cheap lenses whilst still probably not being all that optically good compared to shorter range zooms you'll need to decide. I'd view any of these super zooms as adaptable multi use day out and holiday lenses rather than as quality optics and there's the question of if you would take the Canon on holiday.

Good luck whichever way you go.

 

[Gritty]

OK.

I'd have a long hard think about what I expected from a lens with such a long zoom range and fairly limiting maximum apertures. I think I'd still see such a lens as a lens to use in good light on days out and holidays and rely on other lenses for low light and/or higher image quality. Looked at like that I might just seek out another Sigma 28-300mm at just over £100 on evil bay. I still look at pictures I took with that lens in 2004.

Tamron made a similar lens and they're on evil bay too. I've no doubt the Canon super zoom is better, but if it's worth the extra money over these cheap lenses whilst still probably not being all that optically good compared to shorter range zooms you'll need to decide. I'd view any of these super zooms as adaptable multi use day out and holiday lenses rather than as quality optics and there's the question of if you would take the Canon on holiday.

Good luck whichever way you go.

Thanks woof, woof