EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM

[nativetxn73]

Hi.  I am considering purchasing either the Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM lens or the Sigma 50-500mm F4.5-6.3 APO DG OS HSM lens.  

I'm looking for anyone that can tell me more about either of these lenses & their own personal experience with them.

[RobKillen]

Thank you, E Biggs, for your detailed response. It's very useful.

Currently I have a 16-35, 100, 70-200 and a 150-600. What I'm looking for is something that's reasonably wide but also has the 40-70 range and then out to say 350-400 - which I can use as a general purpose lens. Weight isn't an issue for me and I have an excellent tripod as well as a modets monopod.

You can still get the 50-500mm here in the UK, new and it's heavily discounted - down to around £500.00 now.

When out roaming, I want to cut down lens changes in poor weather, sandy beach areas and spontaneous hikes, walks and tours.

Any further advice or insight would be much appreciated.

Regards, thanks.

Rob.

[ebiggs1]

Rob,

Again remember I have the 150-500mm version.  But like I said the two lenses are nearly identical except for the extra 100mm on the short end.  Mine is also the brand-N mount.  the one you want is the Sigma 50-500mm f/4.5-6.3 APO DG OS HSM Lens model.

Sigma made two models one has OS and one doesn't.  You will need the OS which is Sigma version of image stabilization.  Actually it works very well.  I have a photo from my normal set up for shooting birds. Unfortunately there wasn't any birds around at the time.  It will give you an idea of what you can expect from yours.  This is from a 12mp camera on a tripod.

I wouldn't consider it as, my, general walk around lens but I suppose it will certainly work.  It is not weather proof at all.

IMHO, it is a very good lens especially for the money.  However, it is not a great lens. I have had two of them. One in each mount.  I didn't keep the Canon mount because I have more better Canon lenses.  I have the Nikkor 200-500mm lens and the Siggy is way better than Nikon's entry in this catagory.  I would pick the Siggy every time over the Nikkor.

[RobKillen]

Hi EBiggs1.

Thanks, again, for the great response - it is much appreciated.

Currently doing the rounds and having something a negoti-auction with a few suppliers - we'll see what happens.

That picture is useful too - the idea that I can get along the Jurassic coast here, take in some landscapes and then close in on formations, birds, ships and whatever in the region, is highly attractive.

Again, thank you.

Regards

Rob.

[cicopo]

I had the original 50-500 (non OS version) and it was a pretty good lens but not for hand holding when used in the longer end. it gewts heavy rather quickly. IQ was good but AF was a bit slow for fast paced action, which became what I shoot most of the time these days. It was fine for wildlife but I doubt it would be very good for birds in flight untess they are large.

[teammt]

I am also considering the 28-300 for a 5D III that I will be purchaisng.  I have driven my self crazy comparing lenes and considering the draw backs to having a super zoom.  I have a 7D that I can use with a TC and 70-300 IS USM lens for reach.  Any thoughs on on the 28-300 as a walk around besides it being heavy?

[cicopo]

It's both heavy & a bit bulky but the other thing to know about it is that it gets noticed. If you're trying to blend in while shooting general stuff it's a bit hard thanks to the while color & physical size. I used mine as my walk about lens last vacation mounted to a 1D4 with great results but it got heavy on long walks & I have a wide & comfortable strap which I wear across my chest / back & not hanging from my neck. .

[teammt]

i had the same question. After some very helpfull posts from other fourm members I went with the 24-105L and the 100-400L. This works best as the walk around lens is lighter. I have recently added the the 11 - 24 f4.