Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Canon 28-300 L zoom questions

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
February 20, 2005 12:35:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

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
February 20, 2005 5:35:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

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" <joemachado@valornet.com> wrote in message
> news:1108920940.239582.63970@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.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
> >
Anonymous
February 20, 2005 7:10:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

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

Yes.
Related resources
February 21, 2005 12:53:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

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" <joemachado@valornet.com> wrote in message
news:1108920940.239582.63970@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.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
>
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 9:49:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

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
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 3:25:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

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
February 21, 2005 6:03:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Hi Joe,

A Few links that might help...

http://www.canon.co.uk/for_home/product_finder/cameras/...
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-...

and

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-28-...

Regards

DM

"Joe" <joemachado@valornet.com> wrote in message
news:1108938912.719220.179100@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.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" <joemachado@valornet.com> wrote in message
>> news:1108920940.239582.63970@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.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
>> >
>
February 21, 2005 6:21:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

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" <arthurw@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:1108997355.414762.311010@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.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
>
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 6:47:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

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
February 22, 2005 1:07:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Thanks very much to all, the insight is great. My idea was to get a
world class lens that could be used for portratits, macro, and the
occasional rodeo. With the 1.6 factor of the 20D the length of the lens
would be about 320mm. Also, the macro would be about 112mm, and with
the EF12 extension tube, the minimum focus distance might be reduced to
within 1.5-2 feet. Thus, I would get a world class lens that coudl do
all this, and with Image Stabilization.

My options are to get nothing and keep my current 50mm macro, 18-55 kit
lens, and 135 mm soft focus lens ( great with the EF 25 extension tube
).

My other option was to get the 35mm 1.4 just to have a world class lens
that everyone agrees is superb, and with the 1.6 multiplier would be a
great 42mm and perfect for much of what I do. Or, I could get the 135mm
F2L lens and have a world class lens that could also serve up macro
duty with the EF 12 extension tube or serve up moderate telephoto at
about 216 mm. Then I could balance the two with the 50mm F1.4 or 85mm
F1.8.

or just get the 70-200 with IS and forget about it and be happy with a
world class lens, and anything below 70mm use the 50 macro or 18-55, or
get the 35mm F2 used.

or just get the 280300 and be ready for anything and always be shooting
sharp, and not buy another lens. For a while.

Thanks again, that is what I am looking at.
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 1:47:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

DM wrote:
> 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.

200/2.8, better optical, and lighter than zoom.
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 8:39:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On 21 Feb 2005 22:07:21 -0800, Joe <joemachado@valornet.com> wrote:
>
> My other option was to get the 35mm 1.4 just to have a world class lens
> that everyone agrees is superb, and with the 1.6 multiplier would be a
> great 42mm and perfect for much of what I do.

35 * 1.6 = 56

Regards,

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 12:53:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Joe wrote:
> My idea was to get a world class lens that could be used for
portratits

I am using 50/1.8 on 300D.

> macro

100/2.8 Macro.

> and the occasional rodeo.

For tele, 200/2.8 on 300D. Plus a 2x for 400/5.6 effective, 640
equivalent.

> With the 1.6 factor of the 20D the length of the lens
> would be about 320mm. Also, the macro would be about 112mm, and with
> the EF12 extension tube, the minimum focus distance might be reduced
to
> within 1.5-2 feet.

For macro, the spec of magnification is more meaningful than closest
focusing.

> My options are to get nothing and keep my current 50mm macro, 18-55
kit
> lens, and 135 mm soft focus lens ( great with the EF 25 extension
tube
> ).

Good option.

> My other option was to get the 35mm 1.4 just to have a world class
lens
> that everyone agrees is superb, and with the 1.6 multiplier would be
a
> great 42mm and perfect for much of what I do.

28/1.8 is equivalent to 45mm. 24/2.8 is equivalent to 38mm. If you use
those focal lengths most often, then get one of those.
!