Thank you! I AM in the situation where I get to re-start from square one, a whole collection dating back nearly two decades, YAY, and was planning on getting all my old lenses (the same exact ones you mentioned and a few others) but I think I'm going to put those on hold and go with this one first and couple fixed lenses I always have to have (also the exact same ones you mentioned - hah!) - they're little and light. I am a bit apprehensive of night photos with these specs so it might not be a keeper, but I've never had a good 300mm lens before. I had some awesome moon shots with my 200mm and now live in a place with awesome moon photo opportunities as far as a foreground goes - BIG MOON rising over the energy plants next to the bay, through a sparse patch of eucalyptus trees, overlooking a valley with some recognizable icons... I can't wait for this thing to show up!!!
Could you please comment on how the lens breaths during pulling and whether you could do any fast zooming in combination with dual pixel af and be visually smooth?
Hi Henry, maybe you can help with issue when tighten doesn't hold anymore.. I have 28-300 mm, the same construction, and tighten ring doesn't hold any more so zoom slides down like it's permanent on loose.. any suggestion? thanks :)
Hi Henry. I'm thinking in buying this lens for video. I will use it for recording theatre plays, where I need to be at some distance from the actors, as they are recorded live on stage. I have some question about the zooming, relative to it's softness. As I din't see on your review any video sample using zoom, I would like to know how smooth can it be. Many times I need to make those smooth zooms into the actors face to get more emotional shots. Can you help on that question? Thanks a lot. Great Review!
for video graphey this lens i need some canon lense not for photo graphey so which lens is good for me because this lens is good for only photographey i need best video graphey lens
I bought a second hand "like new" in 2013. Have been useing it with APSC and fullframe (550d, 7dII, 5dIII), traveled round the world. Yes, it's the first choice for travel, sports and children, esp. when you have dusty conditions - no lenschange needed. Bodies change, this lens lasts.
I might buy, could you please show an Image far away at 200mm and immediately 300mm to see the extra reach it gives? otherwise, 70-200 F2.8 is in my mind.
is it just me or many of photos are a bit blurry? I'm sorry to ask but if those photos are what this lens usually do I won't purchase it! Or is it RU-vid less quality?
I considered this lens but you’d be stuck with the weight and length all day. I ended up getting two lenses. I got the EF24-70mmf/2.8L and the EF70-300mmf/4-4.6L I tended to use one for each purpose and it was rare that I’d use both in a day. The 24-70 first series was such a big bastard.
Congrats on the only (coherent) review I've ever found on this lens. There are actually two reviews by guys that have NEVER used it. Go figure. I've owned my copy for ten years, and have a love / hate relationship with it. It's an all-in-one but the price you pay (beyond the crazy high cost) is the weight. While not much heavier than my 70-200 2.8, it "feels" much heavier. The main allure, as you noted in your review, is having "one lens". However, if you are walking about, or on an all day shoot, your back will be feeling the weight. At the low end, it is not has sharp as my 28-70 2.8 and at the high end it is less sharp and slower than the 70-200 2.8 or the 70-200 4.0. At 300 it is also less sharp than the 200-400, though has better color than that lens. If I had it do do over again, I would not have purchased it, but do use it occasionally. Calling it a "sleeper" was a spot-on comment. Anyway, your review captured at least one new subscriber. Good luck with your channel. Thanks for a solid review. Looking forward to more of your posts. Cheers. ^Carl.
@Henry Ortlip good day I don't like canons new Taiwan made 24 240 lens I wanna set this one to canon eos r5 but I hear that pumps the dust inside of the camera and also hear about some issues with the zoom about the dust pimping is it the true ?
Hey Henry did you finally bought it? I bought 2nd hand an L 35-350mm USM f3.5-5.6 wich is a 20 years old or even more lens and there is not even as much videos and information as with this newer piece of glass that I believes cames to substitute that "old" 35-350mm. The range is impressive and the pull zooming is fantastic. Anyway I bought it because a professional Motorsport photographer told me about it, but my copy has some bad focusing and I'll return it. Yet as it is a 20-25 years lens it has a big problem: Does not have any stabilization and this can be a huge issue. So i believe the 28-300mm L is the newst version of that old glass, and it sounds interesting getting one as for the focal range it brings. Yet for motorsport 300mm is a lil too few and the extra 50mm from the older version are a big advantage but then once again is not stabilized. Cheers,
For reference the stabilisation modes are different - 1 is for horizontal and vertical ad 2 is for panning shots and tripod stuff where it is only for horizontal movement
Thanks for doing the review. Like you said, there's not a lot of reviews on this lens. Since it's an "L" lens with the red ring, you have to expect greatness from this lens, and yet I'm still skeptical. Seems too good to be true. I will make a decision soon. I haven't been disappointed with the L line with the red rings.
It's nowhere near the optical quality of the 70-200mm IS II or III, but it's a super zoom and Canon is the only company making a professional version of a super-zoom and this lens serves a purpose. However I will say that most people should not buy this lens and the only reason I ever did buy this lens was too shoot photojournalism at the burning man festival. The reason was simple and the same reason many of my colleagues brought this lens to Iraq during the war on terrorism years ago, you don't need to change lenses and risk getting dirt, dust, debris in the shutter assembly, mirror box and sensor area's. Photojournalist working in tough environments have been the primary users of this lens and it's predecessor the 35-300mm L lens. I do have a friend who likes this lens and uses it often down at the beach and again he bought it so he does not ever have to change lenses near the sand and water. The optical quality is nowhere near a 24-70mm f2.8 IS II or 70-200mm f2.8 IS II though.
Certainly useful, with R6 I wish to use this lens. I was looking for your thoughts on 1.4 v 2x extenders. Will 2x extenders will still have AF work in a flawless manner?
Awsome review, i have this lens on my shopping list & i take on board what others say about a cheaper lens, but that is it (cheaper being the word) i cant count the amount of cheaper lens's i have gone through as the sharpeness or bulid quality just wasnt there. I have the 28-105mm, 70-300mm & the 100-400mm L lens's & they are absalutly pin sharp, i wish i could add an image here but i cant. I also have cheaper prime lens's (Sigma) that are also good but equally as expensive so i would rather have the canon for the bulid qulity and robust workmanship. nice review i am sold on those images thank you...
May I ask how photo sharpness is compared to your other L lenses? The reason I ask is because DXOMark really gave this lens bad sharpness ratings, but from what I saw with your footage, it looked very good. Either way, I'd love to know how sharpness compares vs your other lenses. Thanks! And...thanks for posting this up!
Hey Steven, good question. To be honest-- especially for video i thought it was equally sharp. 4K is basic JPEG photos which is amazing quality but also is a 1.3 crop and its the corners that matter when it comes the quality comparison-- but when only using the middle of the lens its not a problem. The only time i really notice sharpness is when I'm using my 85 1.2 and 50 1.2 All zoom lenses I have I don't notice difference. The primes however are sharpe. Sometimes almost too sharpe with just making wrinkles pop out on people faces. It really depends on how you want to use the lens to determine what you need. I would say this in closing. I use the 24-105 for 60% of my shots. the 28-300 was equal if not better to the 24-105. if you can work in f5.6 - f8 chances are things will look great in the lenses sweet spot. hope this helps :)
Stefan Lush I own this lens as well as 17-40L and 24-70L. I’d choose the trinity over this lens. It’s not a bad lens, there are just better options sold separately. Not worth the cons IMO
This review is 4 and the lens is 17 years old but there still might be people interested in cheap second hand lenses so I want to write my experience with this lens. It collects dust in the very front element and looks very ugly but it doesn't affect photos. Push-pull is great for zooming quickly and this is strictly a photojournalism lens made for specific purpose to let journos on the ground to leave one of their SLRs at home. For outdoor videos it's okay but never ever think about shooting something indoors. Compared to 24-70 and 70-200 which are the minimum essentials for a photojournalist, 28-300's sharpness is visibly inferior and this is very apparent on video. For photos, this is not a big deal as Lightroom does the makeup. With my 35mm F2 IS, 28-300 is the lens that I can't change with something else easily. Now mine is giving Er01 due to ribbon cable malfunction like most push-pull lenses but I hope soon I'll get it repaired.
Help,. Hi thanks for the review. I can't make up my mind in terms of which lens to get i. CANON EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III USM Lens Mark 3 Mk3 ii. Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM iii) Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM I want to use it for dog photography close up and distant shots, also may take astronomy shots too.
Hey Ricky, I think you have answered your own question option ii. Close up-- to range when they are out running. for astronomy I would go longer 500mm + currently I have the RF 100+500 as my longer lens. I think the 70-200 range is the most useless lens. I used to own it-- and so many people do. Maybe its good for weddings--- idk. that lens never did it for me :)
@@HenryOrtlip the 70 to 200 I did think that the 2.8 would give me good bokeh shots for the dogs. Read dog photographers always rave about that. So am I right to think that the 28-300 will give fairly good close up shots as well as the range shots? Sorry as you can probably tell I'm not a pro, I recently this year bought a 90d as my first DSLR. lens wise I'd rather invest in something decent and make it last. Will look in to more about the 500 lens, sounds silly but I got a really wanting to take a shot of the moon in detail. I have seen videos of people on YT take some great shots of the night sky with a kit lens.
This is the lens that I want since I have a canon...Still not having it, but hoping I will soon get it. I already got a Canon 10-18mm lens, which is the best wide-angle lens ever. Then also got the 18-135 lens, which is good, use it 90% of the time. But, it's not there yet. So yeah, I only want a real telezoom lens like this one. And a lens with a goof light sensitivity. Thanks for the revieuw!
@@IamGabrielVazquez The weight and size are a huge factor when using this lens. It's way too big and heavy to use as a take everywhere lens. If you're shooting for clients I suggest you figure out what focal lengths suit you best for projects and if you're shooting for fun I suggest you get something cheaper and lighter. IMO the IQ from this lens is not worth the increase in price compared to cheaper options. This is the L lens that won't really "wow" you. I only have this lens because it was given to me. It's just my opinion from my experience with the lens. Hope this helps. I had another, more comprehensive, reply typed but I pressed back button in error and lost it. If you have any further questions let me know.
This is a very simplistic review. You spend most of the time talking about how much you like the zoom functionality. You don’t talk about autofocus speed. You say little about image quality. You say nothing about build quality. Nothing about the challenges of using a push/pull lenses. Nothing about the design of the friction setting and how you can’t adjust it unless you hold the focus ring still. Basically, this review mostly boils down to “I love how much zoom this lens has.”
All your points are valid. This was one of my first reviews on RU-vid, with each review comes lessons leaned. Thanks for the feed back, and I did love how much that lens zoomed ;)
@@HenryOrtlip I own this lens. And like you, I bought it primarily for its versatility. As digital sensors get better and better in low light conditions, the small aperture of this lens becomes less and less of an issue. In fact, I think low light performance of digital sensors is improving faster than their resolution. So in essence, this lens actually gets better with age! My biggest issue with this is the focus ring and zoom friction ring moving together. You can’t adjust the friction without holding the focus ring still. I think Canon screwed the pooch on that.
No one ever, ever, be able to tell the true value of this lens. It looks exactly like a telephoto lens (which somehow it is), but it is a wide angle lens! You can fool your target subject. You approach your subject until really close. You point the lens, not straight on the subject, but pretended to "somewhere behind / beside it". You successfully take a shot for your subject at 28 mm, without the subject ever realized it. I'm a Nikon user and I really want the lens of the same form factor of Nikon's its own.
That lens is old. The pull push is obsolete by nearly all lenses manufacturers. It was introduced in 2004 at the end of the film era. The Tamron 28-300mm F/3.5-6.3 Di VC PZD which was introduced in 2014 might be a better choice at a fraction of cost.
This lens has been supersede by the new RF 24-240mm. The 24-240mm is much lighter, has better stabilization and, most importantly, is sharper than this old L lens. The 24-240mm is secretly a L lens given its huge focal range.
idk if "supersede" is the right word. The RF is exclusively for Canon's mirrorless line so that excludes a lot of us. Still, I'd love to see the RF 24-240mm firsthand to see how it stacks up.
It is big heavy great lens but practically can be replaced by Tamron 28-300mm PZD with 1/3 weight, price but at 95% optical quality of this L lens. Canon is abandoning this class of L lens and focus more on shorter range. Unfortunately, EF mount is also being abandoned now as mirrorless advanced so much.
