Ok, I have the privilegy of trying both at the same time.
I did already hundred of pictures in comparison, but I will do few
more.
Here is my finding:
(I will call the 28-200 simply 200 and 28-300 simply 300 ok?)
Both are 62 filter so these are both the newest versions (the older
200 was 72)
The 300 is build from plastic, even the mount is plastic - the
bottom thing that holds the lens in camera (same as normal Canon
lenses). The 200 has much more metal in it (one extension ring is
also metal), the bottom mount is also full metal, but I believe
still screwed to a plastic main body. The 200 is still a bit
lighter (but hardly noticable).
At 28 both are about the same size, the 300 being just a bit longer
(about half inch?)
To put 300mm they had to really stretch things literally. At 300
the lens is looking really funny long. the 200 on full length is
shorter, looking less comical. The most interesting part is that
because of the changes they had to do in 300, the extended length
of the 300 in 300(full) or 200 is actually pretty much the same
(that means very long). The same length of the 300 and the 200 is
when the 300 is at 100mm. So in any bigger zoom conditions you have
the 300 extended quite a lot. (It may seems not important but in my
opinion it is-read further)
Now the quality- overal the glass of these lenses seems to be same
in ideal conditions (tripod, lot of light). The 300 has 6.3 at its
tele-end, but that actually gets into work right after 200mm. So a
breath below 200 you are at 5.6, a breath after 200mm you are at
6.3 This half stop just after 200 makes a big difference at this
length (shooting 1/200 or 1/320).
Even in ideal conditions, the 300 is too much to hold steady. I was
testing both lenses at 200 to be comparable (same speed, same F)
and find out that I have more steady shots with the 200 lens. I
think the much longer length of the extended 300 (in 200 mark)
makes this lens to be more affected by shake. Of course at 200+
this makes even worse because of the 6.3
Then I blow the shot from 200 less up using lanczos 3 and bi-cubic
to the pixel size of the shot from 300 lens. The results were same
actually the 200 lens being a bit better since of the less shake to
begin with, but overal the same detail.
Chromatic fringing are on both equally present. Not biggie, but
visible on tele on many images.
Now the handling. The 200 lens zoom ring seems to be stiffer and
actually it has stiff point around 50mm. The 300 lens zoom ring is
smooth on whole range.
The Grid on 300 lens for zoom ring and focus ring are wider and
seems to fit more to hand. Both have creep lock, but there is no
creep on either one. The both lenses does rotate inside when
focused not outside as in Canon so if you put filter and focus, the
filter doesn't rotate. Great for C-Polar and you can actually use
the Cokin type of panel filters without turning them everytime you
focus.
The image quality seems to be equal, but it seems you are picking
up more shake on the 300 (even at 200mm mark) and obviously a lot
more on 200+
On camera, I actually like better the feel of 300 zoom ring, it has
the perfect stiffness yet still smooth. The 200 lens is a bit too
stiff (but not as Sigma lenses) and it has more stiffness around
50mm
Both are reasonably quiet in AF (quieter than Sigma)
So while I like he feel of the 300 lens, the 200 lens gives me
better results and it doesn't look that strange on camera.
Now about the quality. These lenses are soft, yes, but maybe not as
much as you would expect from such wide focal range and not as much
as many people claim. Most of the "softness" is actually coming
from the shake. In a reasonable zoom
100 you can actually get
quite good details from the 200 lens. The 300 with its 6.3 is
unfortunately on the edge of being not much usable without tripod
even with good light. So you want to keep on 5.6 which then on the
300 lens means always checking the aperture in viewfinder and
slowing you down.
Which one I recommend? Now if a quality is the top priority then
none of them. They are bit more expensive and deliver rather the
convenience over quality. A Canon 28-105 would be cheaper and
better bet. And just check it out the 105 on digital is actually
pretty good zoom.
If you simply want such wild zoom then 200 lens is a better deal.
It is cheaper about $100-$150 and seems to work just a bit better.
Oh and don't forget to pick up the prime 50mm/1.8 for $70. These
will be the best money you ever spent for razor sharp images and
you may get few friends by actually being forced to come closer to
subject
Is there anything else you want to know?
http://www.mediachance.com
