Who is the target audience for this lens?

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Graham Fountain - 27 Feb 2007 10:05 GMT

The lens in question - the Canon 28-300L F3.5-5.6.
I'm obviously not in the target audience, and can't for the life of me work
out who would be.
28-300's are traditionally "travel" lenses, for people who like to travel
light and don't want to change lenses. But weighing in at a massive 1.6kg,
the Canon is too heavy for that. 28-300's are of course known for not being
super-sharp, and the L series should of course be considerably better than
sigmas/tamrons etc, and I'm positive it is, but I am also positive that it
wouldn't be as sharp as say the 24-105/4L and the 70-200/4L IS. This pair of
lenses weighs in at about 300g lighter than the 28-300, and at Canon's RRP
will lighten your wallet by $400 less. While it's not an L lens, I'd still
be fairly confident that the 70-300/4-5.6IS would be just as good if not
better over it's range compared to the 28-300, and is another $1000 cheaper.
So any clues as to what target audience would buy the 28-300? I'm sure there
is a reason for buying it, but I'll be damned if I can think of it.

Reply to this Message

Jason - 27 Feb 2007 10:54 GMT

If you need the focal length range, but can't be constantly changing lenses.
IT is the only option..

The large focal range means compromises have to be made with image quality.

> The lens in question - the Canon 28-300L F3.5-5.6.
> I'm obviously not in the target audience, and can't for the life of me work out who would be.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> So any clues as to what target audience would buy the 28-300? I'm sure there is a reason for buying it, but I'll be
> damned if I can think of it.

Reply to this Message

Graham Fountain - 27 Feb 2007 12:13 GMT

> If you need the focal length range, but can't be constantly changing
> lenses.
> IT is the only option..
>
> The large focal range means compromises have to be made with image
> quality.

that's the thing though - it's not the only option. Tamron and Sigma (and
I'm sure many others), make lenses with the same aperture and zoom range,
that are much lighter and smaller. I know that they aren't the same quality,
but they are still quite good - If I wanted big zoom range without changing
lenses I'd use one of those lenses. If I wanted ultimate image quality, I'd
go the option of 2 lenses. I can't think of any scenarios that would call
for such dramatic changes in focal length, where the bulk and weight
wouldn't cause problems. I'm probably overlooking something - so what is it
i'm overlooking?

>> The lens in question - the Canon 28-300L F3.5-5.6.
>> I'm obviously not in the target audience, and can't for the life of me
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>> So any clues as to what target audience would buy the 28-300? I'm sure
>> there is a reason for buying it, but I'll be damned if I can think of it.

Reply to this Message

NikonF4 - 27 Feb 2007 21:40 GMT

> The lens in question - the Canon 28-300L F3.5-5.6.

The same guy that used the 35-350 L series I would guess

Reply to this Message

Matt Richards - 28 Feb 2007 03:15 GMT

> The lens in question - the Canon 28-300L F3.5-5.6.
> I'm obviously not in the target audience, and can't for the life of me work
> out who would be.

The only person I've seen using a 28-300 was a newspaper photographer.

Matt.

Reply to this Message

Smeegles - 28 Feb 2007 03:35 GMT

> The lens in question - the Canon 28-300L F3.5-5.6.
> I'm obviously not in the target audience, and can't for the life of me
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> So any clues as to what target audience would buy the 28-300? I'm sure
> there is a reason for buying it, but I'll be damned if I can think of it.

Photojournalists are the usual suspects.
Saves them changing lenses all the time.

Reply to this Message

Don - 28 Feb 2007 11:21 GMT

Interesting, but one of my friends at work who shoots with a 350D has the
hots for a 28 - 300. I turned her away from the Tamron because having used
one, I don't believe it cuts the mustard. She really wants that range and I
wonder if the 28 - 300L will meet her needs if she can afford it. Those
that are happy to shell out the big bucks for L series lenses are probably
going to be happy to carry two lenses simply for the quality. I regularly
carry the 24 - 105 and the 70 - 200. Throw in a 1.4 converter and I have it
all (well almost).

regards

Don

>> The lens in question - the Canon 28-300L F3.5-5.6.
>> I'm obviously not in the target audience, and can't for the life of me
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> Photojournalists are the usual suspects.
> Saves them changing lenses all the time.

Reply to this Message

Graham Fountain - 28 Feb 2007 21:27 GMT

> Interesting, but one of my friends at work who shoots with a 350D has the
> hots for a 28 - 300. I turned her away from the Tamron because having
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> I regularly carry the 24 - 105 and the 70 - 200. Throw in a 1.4 converter
> and I have it all (well almost).

My thoughts exactly - if you want the quality, you would go two lenses,
which will give better quality for smaller weight. If you want the
convenience, you would go with a tamron/sigma because of the lower weight,
and put up with the lower quality (they're not that bad, but yes, they are
worse than a 24-105+70-200 combo).

> regards
>
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>> Photojournalists are the usual suspects.
>> Saves them changing lenses all the time.

Reply to this Message