All ¨L¨ Lenses in One Package.

Fog Maker wrote:

1. Jeff Peterman wrote:

I was a little disappointed using it at high ISO... it doesn't look ¨too¨ sharp as I expected to be an L lens of this price tag,

I must admit that your statement makes me question the whole review. Image quality due to the lens should be consistent across all ISOs - there really is no connection between the quality of the image leaving the rear of the lens and the camera ISO.

Now, the all-in-one lens is a little slow at longer focal lengths, and the slower aperture means you would need higher ISO. This is physical limitation of a lens covering such a wide focal length.

This may be better than average for a zoom covering such a wide range. But there is no way that it is optically as good as the newer L lenses covering narrower ranges. The main thing that makes this an L lens is the robustness and weather proofing, but I bet my cheap 55-250 STM lens is just as good optically over the 55-250mm range. (The STM lens is as good as my 70-200 f2.8L IS where there ranges overlap - except for the faster aperture, robustness, and weather sealing.)

Jeeeezzzzus.... If you have to use high ISO it’s usually because the light is not too great. And if the light is not good the images won’t come out as sharp

1. I agree with the comment that involving ISO performance in a lens discussion is invalid. ISO performance is the dictate of a combination of the sensor and processor performance and can make images look less sharp as they pixelate. As the end result is the combination of all of these elements it is illogical to blame the lower ISO performance on the lens. If the lens was being used at high ISO was that because it was hand-held - it is after all a very heavy lens? If that is so then camera movement could also have been an contributing factor...

2. The list of differences between the 28-300 and other lenses: "there is no way that it is optically as good as the newer L lenses covering narrower ranges." That is exactly the point... the other and newer L series lenses cover much narrower ranges and that gives them a huge advantage! The 28-300 was meant for completely different purposes: it was meant for the person who wanted an excellent all-in-one lens, was never meant to compete with them. That said, the 28-300 consistently gets excellent ratings from many independent reviewers.

3. "I bet my cheap 55-250 STM lens is just as good optically over the 55-250mm range. (The STM lens is as good as my 70-200 f2.8L IS where there ranges overlap - except for the faster aperture, robustness, and weather sealing.)"  The 55-250 STM is a great lens, but all of the stuff after "except.." is WHY you pay the big bucks for L series glass!  You are answering your own criticism!

I would question from the comments of the contributor if they have never owned or used the 28-300 lens themselves. If that is so then their comments are simple speculation.