Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 1st round robin
I think you are talking about another lens. The EF28-300 f/3.5-5.6L IS USM weighs 3.7 lbs and costs about $1600. (heavier and more expensive than the 100-400) the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS USM weighs 3.1 lbs and costs about $1200. According to the reviews I have read, they seem very comparable, but since I have only used the 28-300 I need input from a user of both lenses.
|
Let me say from the outset that I have used niether of these lens. The reviews and charts I have read on these two lens do rate the 100-400 higher on the optical performance. Which is understandable because it has a smaller zoom range. With the 28-300 you are paying a lot of money to overcome the increased number of design compromises of a x10 zoom.
The 28-300 was intended to be a "one lens" solution for a full frame camera. Somebody who does not want to carry around a bag full of lens and avoid the hassle of keep changing lens on the job. On full frame the lens gives a nice range from wide to telephoto. On a 20D due to the 1.6 crop factor the range is shifted to become normal to long telephoto (45 to 480). Hence, you now see a number of new lens which start from 24mm.
I have the 24-70 f2.8 which on paper performs much better than the 28-300.
The 100-400 on the 20D becomes 160 - 640 when the crop factor is taken into account. There are a large number of bird photographers who use this lens and it does give very good results. If you want even better images you should think about moving away from a zoom lens to prime.
It really depends on your subject, convenience and required image quaility on which lens you should choose. ( providing money is not an issue )
The price you pay for a lens in Dollars is what we pay in pounds sterling in the UK. A very sore point when we look at lens prices overseas.