Lens Help Canon EF28-300 3.5-5.6 USM L vs Tamron AF28-300 3.5-6.3 XR Di VC

[Anne Sh]

Hi

I am heading to India in February and want to reduce the amount of camera gear that I am carrying. Ideally I would like to travel with only one lens....but I might also take my Canon 24-105. My goal is to be able to just pull out my camera and shoot, not muck around changing lenses in the street.

I have a Canon 5D and I am considering buying a multi-purpose zoom lens.

I have looked at both the lenses. The Tamron is much smaller, lighter and cheaper... the Canon is not as compact, quite heavy and x3 the price.

A couple of questions - does the Canon EF 28-300 replace the Canon 35-350? The EF 28-300 doesn't appear in the EOS online brochure?

Has any one used the Tamron...what is the quality like? Is the 6.3 vs 5.6 at the longest length going to be noticeable.

What is the Canon like?

Does anyone have any other suggestions?

[ricktas]

What do you want to take photos of?

[Anne Sh]

The main pont of the trip for me is the Taj Mahal, up to the National Park to hopefully capture some tigers then the incidental candid photos of the locals.

[ricktas]

If you are going to take landscapes you will find a lens that starts at 28mm or 35 mm leaves you wanting. To get great landscapes you need a lens that is 18mm or wider (smaller number). I would suggest looking at one of the 18-200mm lenses. Or going with something like a 10-20 Sigma/Canon and then a super-zoom for your other photography. Having two lenses, whilst not really matching your need to only take one lens, will often you more flexibility to capture all that you come across.

[LJG]

I was tossing up with the 28-300 L as a travel lens also. In the end the size, weight and the fact it was a push/pull zoom steered me towards the 70-200 F4 L with IS. It is one of the sharpest lens in the Canon line-up after the 70-200 F2.8 IS MkII, which is also too heavy for what I call easy travel. The 28-300 is 1.6kg, so not something you are going to want to have hanging around your neck all day. It is also what I would term an in your face lens, that is, it has the potential to attract a lot of attention when you have it out. The other downside, it is not compatible with Canon Teleconverters, which is an easy way to get more reach. I agree with Rick, while the 24-105 is a superb lens on a full frame 5D I also think you would benefit from a wider angle, like the 17-40 or 16-35. If you do buy the 28-300 I think backing it up with one of the full frame L series UWA's would possibly be the better combination. Whatever you do buy yourself a good after market camera strap, like the Black Rapid. It is far more comfortable when walking around. I cannot vouch or give any comment on the Tamron lens, others will have to do that.

[William W]

Hi

I am heading to India in February and want to reduce the amount of camera gear that I am carrying. Ideally I would like to travel with only one lens....but I might also take my Canon 24-105. My goal is to be able to just pull out my camera and shoot, not muck around changing lenses in the street.

I have a Canon 5D and I am considering buying a multi-purpose zoom lens.

I have looked at both the lenses. The Tamron is much smaller, lighter and cheaper... the Canon is not as compact, quite heavy and x3 the price.

A couple of questions - does the Canon EF 28-300 replace the Canon 35-350? The EF 28-300 doesn't appear in the EOS online brochure?

Has any one used the Tamron...what is the quality like? Is the 6.3 vs 5.6 at the longest length going to be noticeable.

What is the Canon like?

Does anyone have any other suggestions?

Yes, the 28-300L is the replacement for the 35-350L and the 28-300 apparently is the much better lens, though I have only used the 35-350L. I have not used the tamron.

The 28-300L (and the 35-300l) are specialist lenses, designed primarily for photojournalism and (usually) High ISO camera (or film) such that one lens will encompass all and provide best quality in environs where lens changes are inappropriate and or the country or local laws prohibit multiple lenses or cameras: that is how I used this lens.

If you have the option and the capacity I strongly suggest you consider splitting the FL range you wish to compass (which seems to be from 24mm up to about 300mm) between two zooms (e.g. 17-40 and 70-200) or select a zoom (like the 24 to 105) and a longer prime (like the 200/2.8) and x1.4MkII a tele-extender.

These solutions will better leverage the lens speed and the image quality and also maintain a non-varying maximum aperture across the zoom range.

***

Lenses like the 18 to 200 or the 10 to 20, will not be suitable for the 5D.

It is assumed that the suggestion missed the fact that a 5D was mentioned in the original post - as we do not want advice or comment misinterpreted as “correcting people” but rather it is just contributing to make something correct which was incorrect – nothing more nothing less.

WW

[William W]

Is the 6.3 vs 5.6 at the longest length going to be noticeable.

Addendum:

It is only ⅓ Stop and for most intents and purposes no, not an issue apropos comparative Shutter Speed or ISO compensation to address that ⅓ Stop of lens speed.
But “noticeable” – maybe: and that goes to comparative Image Quality, when the lenses are used wide open and on that comparison I cannot comment, save to say when using the 35-350 if I could so do, I would stop down (at least) 1 Stop across the whole FL range.

Also, for any comparisons, evaluations and considerations about suitability: the F/5.6 (F/6.3) is NOT just at the longest FL.
As rough rule of thumb, you can expect that both lenses will reach that smallest maximum available aperture at about the mean of their zoom compass: so that’s around FL = 170mm.
i.e. (28+300)/2 = 164.

WW

[JM Tran]

from my experience using the 28-300L and 24-105L for press journalism and travel photography, the 24-105L wins in many aspects.

the beauty of the 28-300L is that pairs up better with a 1D body for environmental sealing, popular when I was in the Army and dudes carried it in all conditions without a care. With the only other advantage being a useful focal length.

however this is a compromise as the IQ is very average compared to the 24-105L - the latter possessing better sharpness, colours and contrast and a more useful constant F4. But the best thing was its MUCH smaller size. The 28-300L at full zoom - being a push-pull lens makes it very big and heavy and attracts a lot of attention - many times unwanted attention, particularly if you use it for traveling as a civilian. My advice as a regular travel photographer is to keep it small and discreet, you can fit a 5D and 24-105L into a small satchel bag easily, but the former you will it very hard to. The 24mm compared to 28mm is a big difference too for wide shots particularly indoors or landscape.

As I gained more and more experience in overseas traveling and shooting for freelance or for personal usage - I went from 28-300L and Tamron equiv. < Canon 28-135 IS < Canon 24-105L < to my current love of a Canon 35L prime. I have learnt that after years of travel that it wasnt about trying to cover or zoom to everything possible, but to use a lens and focal length that is best suited to telling your story


IQ review of 28-300L by photozone - http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff...8300_3556is_5d

[Bennymiata]

Why don't you just take your 24-105 and buy a 2X converter for it.
Kenko ones are relatively cheap and do the job quite well.
The converter is small and can easily fit into your pocket, and this wouod save you buying a lens you may not use much in the future, but a converter is a good thing to have.

[William W]

Why don't you just take your 24-105 and buy a 2X converter for it.

One reason would be the loss of AF.
But there would still likely be AF with a x1.4 Telephoto Converter.

But: because of the design of most standard zoom lenses to make their wide end Focal Lengths, Kenko does not recommend the use of their telephoto converters, with those zoom lenses – I think the Kenko Technical Data will specifically mention not suitable with any zoom lens which begins below 50mm or 70mm – i.e. targeting that the 70 to 200 zoomz are OK: but the other, wider zooms, are not.

WW

[Bennymiata]

You are correct William.
I just tried my Kenko 2X on my 24-105 and it won't auto-focus.

[Anne Sh]

Thanks to everyone for your great ideas. They have really got me thinking of other options.

I have a EF 70-300 DO f 4.5-5.6 IS USM that I was considering selling as I tend to use the Canon 100-400 instead. I am now seriously considering the option of buying a wide angle like the 17-40 ( a number of you have suggested this) which I would use quite a bit and taking the 70-300. I know that I would have a gap in my range...but I would have to live with it.

The weight and the obviousness of the 28-300 were concerning me... I need to add to the equation that I am a tall blond, female.....so I don't need any more look at me signs like a huge obvious lens.

[William W]

I doubt you will get any much more, or any much less, by postponing the selling of the EF70-300 DO until after returning from the trip to India.
And, if having 17mm available, (being "much wider than" 24mm (or 28mm)) is no burden to purchase and carry, then IMO that is a more elegant solution than a 28-300L.
Anyway, on the matters of weight etc: I would reckon the 70-300 DO is about half the weight and half the length of the 28-300L.



How "serious" (irreplaceable) is this journey - you do not mention a second camera?

WW

[Anne Sh]

I understand your point...I have no intention or plan for returning to India in the for seeable future...so taking that into consideration...

I have a 7D body that I could consider taking for exactly that purpose...my 5D played up in heat when I was doing some heavy duty shooting...it came up with an error message....then was fine later when it and I cooled down.

But I am really reducing what I would normally carry so far if I only take the two bodies and two lenses.

[William W]

Thanks for the answer.

For clarity, there were two main points to my question about a second camera.
Firstly the point of System Redundancy: i.e. having a back up camera.

But the question also revolved around the other camera’s format:
Considering that you have a 7D (and you take it) then you are using a Dual Format Kit, hence you maintain the leverage of a wider compass with respect to Field of View.

Just as an example, with a light weight kit comprising 7D and a 5D and two zooms 17-40 and 70-300, we have a FoV compass “equivalent” in FF terms: of 17mm to 480mm with only a small gap at 65 to 70mm.

And, we might find that our inclination to shoot in our own style or for the sake of the Subjects might be majorly with the 17 to 40 on the 5D; and the 70 to 300 majorly on the 7D and thus have very few lens changes, anyway.


As you have the 70 to 300 DO and a 7D, it is worthwhile considering the two cameras and a wide zoom added to that lens: all of which should fit in a not too big slingshot or similar.


WW

[Bennymiata]

The 70 to 300 DO is a very nice lens.
Small and sharp with the only questionable thing about it may be the bokeh, but if I were you, that is the one lens I would definitely take with me in your circumstances.

[dulvariprestige]

I would advise against the tamron, this lens was pretty crappy on my 7d, slow focus,poor IQ and 28 was too long to be useful.

[Judyd]

I've got the Tamron lens - and for me it was a decision based on weight and versitility. Yes it won't be as sharp at various points as some of the canon lenses. But when i'm travelling its light and easy and practically, if you're careful to use its sweet spots, then the down side of the lens doesn't worry me. If you're shooting professionally that's different. Plus it depends on what sort of travel photography you're doing - if you've got the time to pull out different lenses thats ok - but i find when i'm travelling the photography happens on the run mostly.
Judy

[Anne Sh]

I am back and thought I might share my experience and what I finally decided to do.

I took the 5D and 7D bodies...it was handy as my 5D played up a bit with that error 30 issue...especially in the heat, when I was hot and I had been asking the camera to work hard. I'll be having it fixed on Tuesday.

I also took...nothing defined as traveling a light as I wanted but..
Canon 24-105
Canon 17-40
Canon 70-300DO.

In the National Parks in India I wished that I had the Canon100-400 with me as the wildlife was at times very difficult to photograph...off in the distance. It was also much harder than in savannahs in Africa as the vegetation in much more dense.

For out and about the versatility of the 24-105 was fantastic especially at the Taj Mahal and some of the temples.

The 17-24 was excellent for some great wide shots.

The 70-300DO did what was asked of it but when extended to the full 300 on the 7D the bokeh as suggested was a bit lacking.

Thanks again everyone for your ideas and suggestions that helped me decide what to take.

[Bennymiata]

I hope you had a great time, and got some good shots.
Please feel free to put some up for all of us to see!