Canon 28-300 L zoom questions

Hello, I have read about this lens in other forums but still have some
questions. Is the lens really sharp, or are the 35mm 1.4( if any
available), 50mm 1.4, and 135mm L lens sharper at their respective
lengths? Also, is the 5.6 at the long end of the zoom a limiting
factor?

I am seeing this lens as very expensive but perhaps a replacement for
the great lenses within the focal length and the addition of IS, thus
making it a bargain, perhaps. With the EF12 II extension tube it might
even make a great macro lens.

Thanks in advance

Joe

Joe,

This is a massive range to cover with one lens successfully. It is L glass &
as such a great lens for what it is. However, read around the various sites
for reviews & it's difficult to get away from the consensus that the best
zoom compromise (at the moment) is the fabulous 70-200 f2.8L IS.

Reviews of this lens are seldom short of 'superb'. It's not a prime so
before any 'purist' leaps in saying this or that prime are better - zooms
are a compromise to gain flexibility of in shot cropping & portability and
therefore it's trying to get the 'least compromise' versus max performance
for your money.

That taken, the 70-200 has a full f2.8 through it's focal range and thus a
wonderful ability to throw any background beautifully out of focus. However,
coupled with the IS an f2.8 when fully extended at 200 is giving 2 full
stops more light (quicker shutter speed, less camera shake) which coupled
with the IS gyros really makes it possible to grab shots hand-held that
would previously have required a tripod.

Also, the f2.8 is vital once you start looking at the issue of
teleconverters. They will only allow full-autofocus functionality if the
COMBINED f factor does not exceed f5.6. Therefore, if you start with a lens
(even of L quality) that is 5.6 at one end of it's focal length then as soon
as you attach a 1.4x converter you lose autofocus at the long end of it's
zoom range [pointless].

Whereas, f2.8 throughout the focal range will allow one to attach not just
the 1.4x but (if necessary) the 2x teleconverter & still have full autofocus
throughout the total range of the lens.

Regards

DM


"Joe" wrote in message
ups.com...
Hello, I have read about this lens in other forums but still have some
questions. Is the lens really sharp, or are the 35mm 1.4( if any
available), 50mm 1.4, and 135mm L lens sharper at their respective
lengths? Also, is the 5.6 at the long end of the zoom a limiting
factor?

I am seeing this lens as very expensive but perhaps a replacement for
the great lenses within the focal length and the addition of IS, thus
making it a bargain, perhaps. With the EF12 II extension tube it might
even make a great macro lens.

Thanks in advance

Joe

Thanks DM, I will check out the 70-200, great advice. Thanks much.


DM wrote:
Joe,

This is a massive range to cover with one lens successfully. It is L
glass &
as such a great lens for what it is. However, read around the various
sites
for reviews & it's difficult to get away from the consensus that the
best
zoom compromise (at the moment) is the fabulous 70-200 f2.8L IS.

Reviews of this lens are seldom short of 'superb'. It's not a prime
so
before any 'purist' leaps in saying this or that prime are better -
zooms
are a compromise to gain flexibility of in shot cropping &
portability and
therefore it's trying to get the 'least compromise' versus max
performance
for your money.

That taken, the 70-200 has a full f2.8 through it's focal range and
thus a
wonderful ability to throw any background beautifully out of focus.
However,
coupled with the IS an f2.8 when fully extended at 200 is giving 2
full
stops more light (quicker shutter speed, less camera shake) which
coupled
with the IS gyros really makes it possible to grab shots hand-held
that
would previously have required a tripod.

Also, the f2.8 is vital once you start looking at the issue of
teleconverters. They will only allow full-autofocus functionality if
the
COMBINED f factor does not exceed f5.6. Therefore, if you start with
a lens
(even of L quality) that is 5.6 at one end of it's focal length then
as soon
as you attach a 1.4x converter you lose autofocus at the long end of
it's
zoom range [pointless].

Whereas, f2.8 throughout the focal range will allow one to attach not
just
the 1.4x but (if necessary) the 2x teleconverter & still have full
autofocus
throughout the total range of the lens.

Regards

DM


"Joe" wrote in message
ups.com...
Hello, I have read about this lens in other forums but still have
some
questions. Is the lens really sharp, or are the 35mm 1.4( if any
available), 50mm 1.4, and 135mm L lens sharper at their respective
lengths? Also, is the 5.6 at the long end of the zoom a limiting
factor?

I am seeing this lens as very expensive but perhaps a replacement
for
the great lenses within the focal length and the addition of IS,
thus
making it a bargain, perhaps. With the EF12 II extension tube it
might
even make a great macro lens.

Thanks in advance

Joe

Joe wrote:
is the 5.6 at the long end of the zoom a limiting factor?

Yes.

Joe wrote:
Thanks DM, I will check out the 70-200, great advice. Thanks much.


Also check out the 70-200mm f4. It doesn't have IS but is optically as
good as the 2.8 version except you lose one stop. If you don't shoot
low light a lot the lens is excellent and over 1 LB lighter and very
easy to handle.

Art

Hi Joe,

A Few links that might help...

http://www.canon.co.uk/for_home/prod..._f2.8L_IS_USM/
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx

and

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx

Regards

DM

"Joe" wrote in message
oups.com...
Thanks DM, I will check out the 70-200, great advice. Thanks much.


DM wrote:
Joe,

This is a massive range to cover with one lens successfully. It is L
glass &
as such a great lens for what it is. However, read around the various
sites
for reviews & it's difficult to get away from the consensus that the
best
zoom compromise (at the moment) is the fabulous 70-200 f2.8L IS.

Reviews of this lens are seldom short of 'superb'. It's not a prime
so
before any 'purist' leaps in saying this or that prime are better -
zooms
are a compromise to gain flexibility of in shot cropping &
portability and
therefore it's trying to get the 'least compromise' versus max
performance
for your money.

That taken, the 70-200 has a full f2.8 through it's focal range and
thus a
wonderful ability to throw any background beautifully out of focus.
However,
coupled with the IS an f2.8 when fully extended at 200 is giving 2
full
stops more light (quicker shutter speed, less camera shake) which
coupled
with the IS gyros really makes it possible to grab shots hand-held
that
would previously have required a tripod.

Also, the f2.8 is vital once you start looking at the issue of
teleconverters. They will only allow full-autofocus functionality if
the
COMBINED f factor does not exceed f5.6. Therefore, if you start with
a lens
(even of L quality) that is 5.6 at one end of it's focal length then
as soon
as you attach a 1.4x converter you lose autofocus at the long end of
it's
zoom range [pointless].

Whereas, f2.8 throughout the focal range will allow one to attach not
just
the 1.4x but (if necessary) the 2x teleconverter & still have full
autofocus
throughout the total range of the lens.

Regards

DM


"Joe" wrote in message
ups.com...
Hello, I have read about this lens in other forums but still have
some
questions. Is the lens really sharp, or are the 35mm 1.4( if any
available), 50mm 1.4, and 135mm L lens sharper at their respective
lengths? Also, is the 5.6 at the long end of the zoom a limiting
factor?

I am seeing this lens as very expensive but perhaps a replacement
for
the great lenses within the focal length and the addition of IS,
thus
making it a bargain, perhaps. With the EF12 II extension tube it
might
even make a great macro lens.

Thanks in advance

Joe

Art,

You're quite right to point the f4 version out to Joe as it is a good lens.
Joe, however, mentioned his original post the issue of using a 1.4x extender
with the 28-300 - raising the 45-420 range (with the 1.6 multiplier) to
63-672.

If you couple a 1.4x with the f4 you will still get full autofocus
functionality (unlike the 28-300) but your effective range would be only be
157-448.

However, the f2.8 whilst having the same reach with the 1.4x also allows the
use if the 2x extender when necessary (still retaining full autofocus
functionality) but giving an effective reach of 224-640.

Also, with the 1.4x extender the combined f would only be f4 not f5.6
rendering the combination far more able to throw the background out of
focus.

Regards

DM

"Fyimo" wrote in message
oups.com...

Joe wrote:
Thanks DM, I will check out the 70-200, great advice. Thanks much.


Also check out the 70-200mm f4. It doesn't have IS but is optically as
good as the 2.8 version except you lose one stop. If you don't shoot
low light a lot the lens is excellent and over 1 LB lighter and very
easy to handle.

Art

I agree with you comments and I'm sorry I missed that in his original
post. My experience with the Canon 80-200mm f2.8 L was different. It's
an awesome lens but was very heavy and therefore seldom used. I sold it
and bought the f4 and I find I use it a lot more.
I also don't know what his final use will be but I shoot birds and have
the 300mm f4 IS ( and canon 1.4X tel converter) and the 400mm f5.6 L
lens. It would seem unnecessary to own both but I found the 300mm f4
with the 1.4x conveter combination made the autofocus too slow for
flying birds. I use both and find lots of situations to use the 300mm
instead of the 400mm like when I'm in a boat. However, The 400mm f5.6 L
is an awesome lens I just wish it had IS.

Art

Art,

No problem.
It's nice to find folks willing to help with both helpful & insightful
comments instead of just...

Joe wrote:
is the 5.6 at the long end of the zoom a limiting factor?
Yes.

What is the point?

As to the older 80-200 f2.8L - it was my 'main' lens (as in it hardly ever
came off the camera body) with my old EOS-1 kit (which I sold to offset the
expense of the new 'digital set-up').

It was heavy - and, to be honest, the new 70-200 f2.8L IS (if anything) is
heavier still.

If weight is THE a major consideration then lenses such as the tempting EF
70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM are worth a fleeting glance. Despite being
tempted to add it to my existing lenses as a 'perfect' travel lens, in the
end the optical trade-off, versus my existing lenses, was just too great.
If, however, I spent half my life ski-ing, or snowboarding, I'm sure I could
very quickly re-evaluate!

Personally, I suppose I'm happy these days to admit being 'addicted' to 'big
glass'. If you've ever had any of the f2.8 - or less - on your camera,
you'll know what I mean - you could nearly eat your dinner off the front
element (they just suck down light) - fantastic!

I'm hoping Canon come up with a better replacement for the 17-40 f4 L than
the current 16-35 f2.8L. If I'm shooting wide-angle it tends to be for
scenery (and not action) and, therefore, the almost 50-50 split on
performance reviews of the 17-40 & 16-35 hardly justified the 2x asking
price!

Regards

DM

"Fyimo" wrote in message
ups.com...
I agree with you comments and I'm sorry I missed that in his original
post. My experience with the Canon 80-200mm f2.8 L was different. It's
an awesome lens but was very heavy and therefore seldom used. I sold it
and bought the f4 and I find I use it a lot more.
I also don't know what his final use will be but I shoot birds and have
the 300mm f4 IS ( and canon 1.4X tel converter) and the 400mm f5.6 L
lens. It would seem unnecessary to own both but I found the 300mm f4
with the 1.4x conveter combination made the autofocus too slow for
flying birds. I use both and find lots of situations to use the 300mm
instead of the 400mm like when I'm in a boat. However, The 400mm f5.6 L
is an awesome lens I just wish it had IS.

Art

My main lens kit for film was the 20mm f2.8, 28-70mm f2.8 L , 80-200mm
f2.8 L, 300mm f4 non IS and 100mm f2.8 macro. Since I switched to
digital and have the 20D it's so easy to turn up the ISO when I need to
gain an f stop that my lens kit now is the 17-40mm f4, 70-200mm f4,
300mm f4, 400mm f 5.6, 100mm f2.8 macro, and the 28-135mm IS lens.
Everyone has their own needs and likes and these meet my needs. What I
also found interesting was when I shot film was that I rarely ever shot
with the lens wide open. The funny thing now doing bird photogrsphy is
I almost always shoot wide open to blurr the background and isolate the
subject. Our needs and lens requirements change as does our
photography.

I agree with your recommendation, the poster just needs to know it's a
big honken lens and will wear you out with it's weight. By they way,
the 300mm and 400mm I have also use 77mm filtrers and certainly have
that wow factor and weight when you are out using them.

Art