All ¨L¨ Lenses in One Package.

Gaston Bonaudi 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, but besides that the picture quality is outstanding. For video it's a little difficult to handle and control the manual focus compared with other small lenses, but is not a big issue (while handheld).
The weight... well.. it's literally like a bazooka, but you will get used to it.
This lens worth every cent you pay. You have all the range covered with the outstanding ¨red ring¨ quality.
I will just add my super-wide angle 10-20 for some special shots.
¨...Be prepared to some: "whoa!" when you get the camera out of your bag.¨
Pros: Fast Auto-Focus, Superior Build Quality, Super-Sharp Images, it's an all-weather lens..
Cons: Semi-Sharp Images, Difficult To Manual Focus For Video Shooting.

Maybe the problem with high iso shots looking soft is more to do with the 7D than the lens as the 7D has the unfortunate reputation of a higher noise level. I have two 7Ds and found this to be the case. I sold my 100-400mm lens in facour of the 28-300mm and am very happy I did so. The photos are so much clearer and sharper but at twice the price I would expect no less. After the first hour of carrying the lens the weight is no longer an issue, but if you are coming to it from small kit lenses you will  notice a significant difference for a hile. For me however coming frorm the 100-400mm it wasnt that noticeable. I used the 18-200IS lense as my travel lens but this one has replaced it prettty much, so good is the zoom range..

at high ISOs, it is not the lens but the sensor in your 7D which makes the images look "not too sharp" which is actually the noise this old and small sensor produces.

This lens is best used on a full frame body

Gaston Bonaudi wrote:

I have bought my 28-300L some months ago and use it all around Galapagos Islands and Easter Island..
I think I'll will never find a better lens like this one.
It is totally awesome, perfect match for my 7D. The image quality is superb. The auto-focus is really-really-FAST and silent.
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, but besides that the picture quality is outstanding. For video it's a little difficult to handle and control the manual focus compared with other small lenses, but is not a big issue (while handheld).
The weight... well.. it's literally like a bazooka, but you will get used to it.
This lens worth every cent you pay. You have all the range covered with the outstanding ¨red ring¨ quality.
I will just add my super-wide angle 10-20 for some special shots.
¨...Be prepared to some: "whoa!" when you get the camera out of your bag.¨
Pros: Fast Auto-Focus, Superior Build Quality, Super-Sharp Images, it's an all-weather lens..
Cons: Semi-Sharp Images, Difficult To Manual Focus For Video Shooting.

theoretically and from what i have head is that telephoto lenses that cover such wide and long FL, do have weaknesses at some point of FL it covers! that is the reason i have a 24-70f2.8II and 100-400 II that covers wide and long reach but they are very superb! YMMD

Also my first hand experience.

Three "L" lenses I own, including the 28-300L, were a major disappointment on three different small (APS-C) cameras, detail/sharpness wise.

Then...I bought a 6D. All three lenses turned a big corner and produce very nicely detailed photos. Especially the old...35-350L .

Mike

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 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.)

With all due respect, I honestly cannot compare a 55-250 with the 28-300.  The optical engineering required to get decent results for a range from moderate wide angle to super telephoto are much more demanding than those for a telephoto only unit.  I have no doubt that your 55-250 is doing a great job and is brilliant value for money, but you are comparing apples to oranges.

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.

IN RESPONSE TO JEFF PETERMAN

I think, first of all this conversation is not relevant to the posts about ISO performance unless you wish to challenge or support that issue.

To address our various preferences. You absolutely are right FOR YOU to go with the multi-lens selection that you prefer. But that does not make the 28-300 in any way a bad or inferior lens - for its type it demonstrably has an excellent performance - for which I will reference not only reviews from DPR, its users, and those on Amazon, but those on Youtube and several other review websites. The point is that it is supposed to be for the person who doesn't want to carry or change between multiple lenses in the field, and as such a device it does an amazing job. Is it suitable for everyone... NO. Is it suitable for those who do not want to apply those criteria... No, there are cheaper and certainly lighter solutions.

In hope we would agree that ALL lenses are compromises between affordability, portability, sharpness, aperture size and focal length or range of focal lengths, and each person makes their choice balancing the pros and cons against their needs and liabilities. I have, and enjoy using on occasion, the 28-300 when I just want "one lens to rule them all" {:-)  I might add that I can see the quality in the lens when I look at the images it creates - often people say a particular lens has an appealing tone or ambiance and this one certainly does for me. I find it in many of my L series lenses (but not all).

I am impressed by the 55-250 STM lens, but considering my own enormous investment in glass I have the range covered and it's not a focal length range I would use very much for the type of shooting I do. I would not dream of judging it negatively it for that reason because I know that suitability is a very personal thing

I'm really glad for you Mike... What kinds of adjustments did you make?