 Peggy Swann |
Canon f3.5-5.6 USM/IS 28-300mm I am considering buying this lense for my digital 20D. Has anyone had any experience with this lense and what are the pro's and con's with it? Is the quality of the picture worth the the price tag and what about the weight of the lense. Any responses would be appreciated. I usually take nature type pictures, lots of birds and landscape pictures but I like the fact that you dont have to change a lense if you need to do a wide angle.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Forrest C. Wilkinson |
Although this is certainly a good lens, this would not be the path that I would travel if I were you. Many people make changing the lenses sound a lot worse than it is; it is simply not worth it. Why? First off, the 28-300 zoom range, while sharp, is not going to have the same quality at both ends as you would get if you got two lenses. Obviously this lens is built so that it encompasses this massive range, it is NOT built to be best at both ends. The pull out and push in system is not very good if you ask me. Secondly, the price is outrageous, you'd be better off buying two specialized lenses; I would recommend the following, heck, you could purchase all three and you'd only be spending a couple hundred more than the 28-300: Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 (NO IS) These lenses are all incredible and any of the combinations will give you much better results, I guarantee it. I wouldn't go after the 28-300mm.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jon Close |
The 28-300L is really intended for 35mm film and the similarly sized sensors of the 1- and 5- series DSLRs. On the smaller sensored 20D, 28mm is not "wide-angle." It gives a view comparable to 45mm on the film SLRs. It is not a suitable "one lens" solution for the 1.6x crop cameras. Otherwise, ditto Forrest's comments. The 28-300L is really a photojournalist's tool, where ultimate sharpness is not necessary since their work is typically printed in low-res newspapers or rarely/never greater than 8x10 in magazines. It has super rugged build, IS, and better sharpness than consumer 28-300 zooms, but isn't as sharp at the tele-end as many tele-zooms costing far less.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Peggy Swann |
thanks alot for your comments they have been very helpful in making a decision about this lense.
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||