Advice on 28-300mm lenses? - DPChallenge Forums

03/19/2004 04:22:34 PM · #1

I'm asking as a film user. I know, I know this is DPChallenge but I have searched and searched and can't find many good reviews out there in regular film photo land...

So...

I currently use a 28-135 and a 100-300 and these are great.

But, for upcoming Africa trips (one of which is 2 months long) I figure it would be handy to have a 28-300 lens for situations when changing lens is difficult.

I know that can expect to lose some quality, that the aperture will be narrow at the long end (is that the right way round) and that I might get some distortion too.

Is it still worth it?

I'm looking at at about Â£300 or so.

And does anyone have any feedback or reviews on different lenses?

I am thinking either Sigma or Tamron?

THANKS

03/19/2004 04:31:36 PM · #2

I have tried a few and wasnâ��t very impressed with any of them. The new EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM will probably be very good but it looks like it is going to be a >$2000 lens, not to mention big and heavy. I would suggest a couple of shorter-range zooms (24-70, 70-200â�¦)

Greg

03/19/2004 04:33:09 PM · #3

As above I already own a 28-135 and a 100-300 so don't need any more on shorter ranges - the quality of both these is fine for me.

I think maybe I might not get one.

Since I'll be taking my old (but heavy) SLR body for backup I'll attach one lens to that and the other to the new body...

THANKS

03/19/2004 04:40:30 PM · #4

By shorter range I wasn't talking about focal length but the range of focal lengths. Typically a 2x zoom will have better quality than a 3x which will typically be better than a 4x... If you want to go out to 300mm or beyond you might seriously consider getting a prime lens if optical quality is very important to you.

Greg

03/19/2004 04:43:49 PM · #5

BTW, if it was me and I was about to spend the money to go on a trip to Africa I would be taking the best glass I can with me to capture the best pictures. The lenses you already have are neither big nor heavy. They arenâ��t even very expensive so I wouldnâ��t hesitate to bring them on such a trip. If it was me and I really wanted an all in one zoom I would be saving my pennies and hopeing that Canon would hurry up and get the 28-300L on the shelves. I have used both the Sigma and Tamron 28-300â��s and they are both very blah.

Greg

Message edited by author 2004-03-19 16:44:58.

03/19/2004 04:44:25 PM · #6

Hmmm

Well... for the skill level I have (read enthusiastic amateur) I am happy with the results from the 28-135 and 100-300. They produce sharp images with no noticable distortion. So I don't think I'd bother with primes. Not unless I get a lot better and start taking more photos more often to justify the expense (I go through phases every few years).

I just heard that the optical quality for non-pro lenses in 28-300 range might be a significant drop in quality from the 28-135 stuff I already have and was hoping for input from anyone who has a lens at the shorter range and has compared results using a lens with the longer range.

:o)

03/19/2004 04:46:45 PM · #7

Yes, in my experience the Sigma and Tamron 28-300â��s are indeed a significant drop in quality from the very good EF 28-135 IS lens. I have never used the 100-300 so I canâ��t comment on that one but I will say that neither the Sigma nor the Tamron are good at 300mm.

Greg