Hi,

I've been playing around with my new camera and learnt the hard way that I need a decent zoom lense. I am keen to get a good lense and, although expensive, am willing to swallow the cost.

I currently have a 17-40 L and want something that will be good for action but also good for candid's and so on. I am sorely tempted by the 28-300 as I know a number of people say that it'll do the job of 3 or 4 other lenses, which is attractive.

I guess the other option would be a 70-200 L IS USM and a 1.4 or 2.0 converter.

What would you go for and why? btw - if I get the 28-300 I will probably be selling my 17-40 if anyone is interested.

ta,
Matt

If you want one lens to do the lot then the 28-300, but the quality won't match the 70-200 and you'll lose you 17-28mm focal lenght on the wider end if you sell your 17-40.

The two lens option is the better choice for quality and options, and you can add the 1.4x to take you up to 280mm if you should need it - personally I wouldn't waste money on a 2x to add to a zoom.

17-40 and 70-200 I'd recommend, especially with the price of the 28-300 and the slower maximum aperture values of the longer lens (although you would also end up with a 280mm f5.6 should you add the 1.4x to the 70- 200)

Gareth

Just realised you were talking about the f2.8 70-200mm, rather than the f4 version (no IS on the f4 ????) and you mention it in the thread title (doh) in which case definitely no contest - and your 280mm would be f4 with the extender.

Hi Gareth,

Thanks for the advice. Would the quality of the f2.8 70-200 really be that much better than the f3.5 28-300? I know the 28-300 is a more expensive lense (about £1600) vs. the 70-200, I guess it is a tradeoff between focal length and f2.8/f3.5. Plus you can't use the converter on the 28-300, which I'm not sure would be a problem with its reach.

Matt

I've not used the 28-300 but generally the greater the range of a zoom the more difficult it is to manufacture, hence the price. The 70-200 is expensive, not because it particularly difficult to manufacture, but because its a constant f2.8 across the range and IS. Don't forget, although its a 28-300mm f3.5 at the 300mm setting its f5.6 - thats slow for a 300mm.

Given the fact you already have the 17-40 f4, I'd add the 70-200 f2.8 and a 1.4x extender which would probably cost in total about the same as the 28-300.

I'll put my neck on the block and say the quality of the 70-200 would be greater, but a 200 f2.8 would be more useful than a 300 f5.6.

No contest for me.

BTW - I use a 16-35mm f2.8L and a 70-200mm f2.8L - you won't be disappointed

Gareth

Hi Gareth,

Thanks again for the info. I've read a couple of the reviews of the 28-300 and they're not bad but definately err on the side of saying it is a compromise between image quality and convenience. Reviews of the f2.8 70-200 are glowing, a number of reviews result in the author saying that it is their favourite lense.

In light of this and based on your info I've ordered the f2.8 70-200 L IS USM and filter. I'll probably go for a 100-400 L for the real long reach stuff when I need it.

thanks once again,
Matt

Matt, I'm sure you won't be disappointed with the lens.

It's always difficult advising what equipment to buy, because no two photographers will have exactly the same requirements or priorities from their kit.

The 70-200 is a superb all-rounder because its reasonable long (especially when you add the 1.4x), but is also fast. The 100-400 is a lovely lens if you shoot a lot of motorsport etc, and I know a lot of photogs here swear by it, and comes into its own at the longer focal length, but at f4.5 at 100mm it's restrictive for that focal length.

I think the 28-300 is too much of a compromise - its not long enough to have an edge over the 70-200, its too slow compared to the fixed 300 f4, and its too bulky to carry and use as a general purpose wide to medium zoom.....as well as being expensive !

The two lenses you have now provide the best of everything, I'd add the 1.4x later as a relatively cheap way of upping the focal length without losing any noticeable quality (don't bother with the 2x).

If you really need something longer then the 100-400 would be ideal or you could add the fixed 400mm f5.6L to save a bit of cash.

Again its down to personal requirement, but your kit virtually mirrors mine (although mines a bit faster :))

Gareth

I would have the 70-200 f2.8 IS + 1.4x tele over teh 28-300L.

All Gareth's advice is sound and the 70-200 IS the best choice :D

I'm not a fan of all-in-one zoom's full stop, even if they are L series. For the price of the 28-300, you can bag a lot of very good lenses however, you then have to decide which one to use :)

Darren

thanks for the comments chaps, can't wait to get it now... hopefully the spending will stop soon, perhaps a speedlite 580 and a 100-400 (sometime) and that'll be it ;)

thanks for the comments chaps, can't wait to get it now... hopefully the spending will stop soon, perhaps a speedlite 580 and a 100-400 (sometime) and that'll be it ;)

In your dreams amigo! :):):) What about a macro lens to open up the miniature world which is all around you, then you'll perhaps want to add a tripod, a ball head, maybe a flash bracket, some filters, a second mini-tripod, a second flash, a portrait lens, a really fast low-light lens, an off camera synch cord, a remote control release, a mounting bracket for the car, a bigger camera bag to store all the new gear, not forgetting a 1.4x teleconverter, a couple of photography books, a magazine subscription or two, a battery charger for the AA's you'll be using in your flash guns, a photo holiday or two to some exotic locations. Let's face it, you are heading for financial ruin -- might as well enjoy it eh? :):):):):):)

In your dreams amigo! :):):) What about a macro lens to open up the miniature world which is all around you, then you'll perhaps want to add a tripod, a ball head, maybe a flash bracket, some filters, a second mini-tripod, a second flash, a portrait lens, a really fast low-light lens, an off camera synch cord, a remote control release, a mounting bracket for the car, a bigger camera bag to store all the new gear, not forgetting a 1.4x teleconverter, a couple of photography books, a magazine subscription or two, a battery charger for the AA's you'll be using in your flash guns, a photo holiday or two to some exotic locations. Let's face it, you are heading for financial ruin -- might as well enjoy it eh? :):):):):):)

And then you won't take any photographs cos its too much to carry around, you'll have hurt your back trying to carry it all - or you'll buy an digital IXUS to carry in your pocket :D :D

lol - I admit, I got a velbon carbon fibre tripod and manfrotto fluid head ;)