Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

28-300L vs 24-105L

Andropov

Andropov

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
May 3, 2012
746
992
Spain
Hey! I'm planning to buy a new zoom lens for a 6D and I'd like to know what people from macrumors think about it too. Since I'll upgrade to a FF camera, I won't be able to use my EF-S zoom anymore (17-55).
I don't usually use the 17mm end (most pictures go from 20~24 to 55mm). I have never missed a wider end, but I really miss more telephoto capabilities.

In FF terms, I have a 27-88mm lens (1.6x crop factor), so the 24-70L is out of the question. 24-105L, in the other hand, is only 17mm longer (but 3mm wider), while the 28-300 is more than 200mm longer, but the wide angle capabilities would remain unchanged, so I don't know if those 17mm will be enough or not. I know the 300mm end of the 28-300 is way more than what I need, and I don't know if I'd use it further than 170mm or so.

The 28-300mm is also a bit faster at the widest end (f/3.5 vs f/4) but a bit slower at the mid end (f/4.5 vs f/4), and it's also heavier, bigger and more expensive. Another option would be a 24-105L + a 70-200L, but I'd loose the versatility of a single lens. I already have a 200mm f/4 prime (Nikon to EOS adapted) and I don't use it all that much, mostly because when I've needed a longer focal length I haven't had time to change lens.

I also have a 100mm 2.8 Macro (and I use it a lot), a 50mm 1.4 Sigma that I'll use after the repair, and a lot of old Nikon lenses (200mm f/4, 55mm f/2.8 macro, 50mm f/1.8, 35-135mm, 28mm f/2.8 and two Nikon teleconveters (1.6x and 2.0x).

What do you think? :)
 
No matter who makes it, a 28-300 is still a "super zoom" and a compromise lens. Split your needs into ranges that can be covered by three lenses and you should be good. If you can't afford all of them right away, welcome to the real world :)

I had a 28-300 Tamron and dumped it for the following kit and I'm set for anything.

28-75 daily shooter
100mm Macro mid tele/macro
120-400 wildlife
All of the above come equipped with a special feature called Foot Zoom.

I shoot with a 7D.

Dale
 
If you don't mind carrying a bigger and heavier lens, go with the much more versatile, and equally sharp 28-300L.
Personally I'd go with a 24-70 F/4L IS/70-200 F/4L IS combo.
 
Designer Dale said:
No matter who makes it, a 28-300 is still a "super zoom" and a compromise lens. Split your needs into ranges that can be covered by three lenses and you should be good. If you can't afford all of them right away, welcome to the real world :)

I had a 28-300 Tamron and dumped it for the following kit and I'm set for anything.

28-75 daily shooter
100mm Macro mid tele/macro
120-400 wildlife
All of the above come equipped with a special feature called Foot Zoom.

I shoot with a 7D.

Dale
Click to expand...

Thank you for your answer. While I definitely agree that a 11x zoom is a conpromised design by definition, I don't think the Tamron comparison is fair. It's four times cheaper and way softer than this lens. People who have it compare its sharpeness with the 24-105L. And I already know the foot zoom, actually when I bought the 100mm macro I used it for everything because I was amazed by how sharp it is.

Apple fanboy said:
I think that's a lot of glass already (I just have the one at he moment).
What do you shoot (mainly)? That will help people advise.
Click to expand...

Well, I shoot everything but wide angles. I love macrophotography, but I also shoot family pictures, portraits, and as much travel photography as I can. That's why I need a good zoom lens and/or do-it-all lens. (I'm covered by the 50mm for portraits and the 100mm for macro, the only thing that's left it the zoom) I can't change lenses in certain situations, that's why I thought about the 28-300. A soft picture is better than no picture, although as far as I've read none of this lens is even close to be soft.

Noctilux.95 said:
If you don't mind carrying a bigger and heavier lens, go with the much more versatile, and equally sharp 28-300L.
Personally I'd go with a 24-70 F/4L IS/70-200 F/4L IS combo.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your answer. I find the 24-70 too short on the long end, otherwise I'd consider it, but maybe a 24-105 + 70-200 would be better, the problem id that I don't know if it'll be long enough for normal use. I'd rent the lenses, but there's not such a service here in Spain...
 
24-105 . I had a 28-300 (Tamron) for a few years and it was , well , OK , sorta ,maybe . I couldn't imagine carrying around the 28-300L . I've got a 100-400 that's about the same size and there's no way I'd carry it around as my everyday lens . 24-105 coupled with the 70-200 f4 or the 70-300L would be my call.
 
someoldguy said:
24-105 . I had a 28-300 (Tamron) for a few years and it was , well , OK , sorta ,maybe . I couldn't imagine carrying around the 28-300L . I've got a 100-400 that's about the same size and there's no way I'd carry it around as my everyday lens . 24-105 coupled with the 70-200 f4 or the 70-300L would be my call.
Click to expand...
Good advice here.

I normally carry a 24-120 and a 70-300. I have a 12-24 that gets added to my camera bag when I think I'll need it.
 
24-105 hands down. Great all around walk around lens. This is my main go to lens in about 80% of the pictures I've taken. I did buy a 28-300 used at a very, very good price that I plan on taking as my only lens on a planned future trip overseas.
 
My 2 cents on glass

I owned the Canon 18-200 for years. It was my "go to lens" holiday lens. I found I was zooming in a lot for the sake of zooming in.

I sold it and kept my Canon 17-55 2.8


when i take my fixed lens Fuji x100 out for the day, i rarely missed the telephoto


As my photography got better, i found i wanted a decent glass for pics that does something specific and did it well (fast, fast focus silent etc). The rest is the power of the crop tool in lightroom!



So muy conclusion if it depends where you are in the learning curve. after you settle into yous style of photography, you tend to narrow your choice of glass
 
def the 24-105L

The other mega lens is slow and quality is much worse than the 24-105 being a 10x zoom
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back