Hopes for a Canon 28-300L MKII...

[Tronhard]

I had the Canon 100-400LMkI and recently replaced it with the MkII version. Leaving aside the improvements in the elements and their coatings, I was drawn to the change from Push-Pull to the rotating style of zoom mechanics. I used the P-P unit for some years and found that the style let me change focal length extremely quickly, but as has been commented on, it was a bit of a bellows, sucking in contaminants. The style of photography I do does not generally require fast changes in focal length, so I preferred the slower and hopefully less bellows-like mechanics of the new unit.

The 28-300L I got as one of my earliest lenses as a walk around unit that also allowed me to skip weight-training classes when I was travelling with limited capacity to carry multiple lenses and bodies. I have found it to take excellent photos within its design parameters. However it too is a P-P lens and I am hoping its replacement is on Canon's books as a potential upgrade to the same design as the 100-400MkII.

[ktuli]

Trev,

I too recently bought the 100-400MkII lens and absolutely love it! Honestly, I'm hoping more lenses get upgraded with the IS system that is in the 100-400MkII as I've never seen any IS that good before. I had borrowed my buddy's 100-400MkI and so I had good experience with it and the MkII topples it in every category in my opinion, but the IS is hands-down the most impressive upgrade to it!

- Bill

[Tronhard]

I agree Bill. Still, it costs a bit even when one sells the previous version! Luckily the glass does not change anywhere near as often as the bodies or I would could only afford to live in a tent...

[William W]

. . . The 28-300L I got as one of my earliest lenses as a walk around unit that also allowed me to skip weight-training classes when I was travelling with limited capacity to carry multiple lenses and bodies. I have found it to take excellent photos within its design parameters. However it too is a P-P lens and I am hoping its replacement is on Canon's books as a potential upgrade to the same design as the 100-400MkII.

If I were a gambling man I'd bet a Mars Bar that there would be many other upgrades before the 28 to 300L.

There are many reasons for my thoughts and all are encapsulated in what I observe anecdotally: that not many people need, want, use, or buy that lens (or its predecessor, the 35 to 350L).

I needed to use the 35 to 350 once for a job as the Stills Photographer as part of a Film Documentary Crew. I was restricted to “enter the country and carry one still camera ONLY”. Mentioning that as the point being, if I (any pro) had the option we’d take two cameras and two lenses as a bare minimum kit.

Considering hobby / amateur photography - Zoom Lenses have advanced so much over the past 20 years, (the 35 to 350 was released in 1993), and many/most?/all? Amateur Photographers, who are ‘serious’ just don’t want to carry 1.6Kg weight (the 28 to 300L); and pay a premium price for an L Series lens with the (inherent) limitations of an x11 Zoom, when there are so many options of buying a combination of two lenses, about equal in total weight; sometimes/(always?) less in price and better in overall image quality, across a similar zoom compass, viz:

EF 24 to 70 F/4L IS
EF 70 to 200F/4L IS
EF 24 to 105 F4L IS
EF 70 to 300 F/4~5.6L IS

*

By contrast, the 100 to 400L is an entirely different kettle of kippers: again anecdotally – during 2012~2015 I shot a lot of Field Hockey and there were quite a few (I mean more than five) 100 to 400L’s in the Grandstand ever Saturday all plonked on enthusiast’s APS-C Cameras.

Both models of the 100 to 400L are: affordable; useful and very good to excellent image quality - hence their popularity.

I appreciate the examples above are anecdotal, but I think that if one could get Canon sales figures such would reveal that the 28 to 300L sits fairly low down, world wide, on their list of total annual sales.

WW

[rpcrowe]

I am seriously considering the sale of my 400mm f/5.6L and 300mm f/4L IS lenses; replacing them with the new 100-400L Mk.2. I would miss the built-in collapsible lens hood on the 300mm and 400mm lenses...

The 100-400L Mk-2 runs $1850 (USD) from 42nd Street Camera in New York (which is a reputable dealer) the two lenses that I mentioned above have brought $700-$800 each on recently completed eBay auctions. That would come quite close to the price of a new 100-400L Mk-2.

I might possibly even replace my 70-200mm f/4L IS lens along with the other two. I would need to test that premise though, because the 70-200mm f/4L IS lens is, along with the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, half of my go-to travel setup...

[Tronhard]

Hi Bill:

I fear there are some serious generalizations and assumptions here. So far I have said what I personally would like, I have not tried to predict what Canon will or will not do, or to speak for photographers in general or label them by the lenses I think they should use. I would have less issue if I felt you were trying to do the same.

Amateur Photographers, who are ‘serious’ just don’t want to carry 1.6Kg weight"
WW

Really... so if you take two lenses and two bodies how much do you think that will weigh?
To get the same range (approx.) the 24-105L weighs in at 670g, the 70-300L weighs 1050g, total 1720g; the 28-300 weights 1670g.
The lens you say is popular, the 100-400L MKII, weighs 1570g, yet people will carry them around...

I used to work professionally, now retired, I would consider myself a fairly serious photographer (something like $42k in gear) and I don't switch lenses in the field. When I carry more than one lens it's attached to a body (and all mine have battery grips), so the weight goes up thereafter as well if I carry two lenses. I have no problem with that and I can carry them for hours, using the appropriate carry gear... and I'm in my 60's.

during 2012~2015 I shot a lot of Field Hockey and there were quite a few (I mean more than five) 100 to 400L’s in the Grandstand ever Saturday all plonked on enthusiast’s APS-C Cameras."
WW

The 100-400MKII came out in Nov 2014, so for most of that time everyone would have been using the 100-400LMKI, it weighs almost the same as the MK II, and it looks identical from any distance to the 28-300L. So, anecdotally, how close did you get to be able to clearly identify them as 100-400L's?

Did you for sure identify all the cameras as APS-C or is that an assumption because you assume they are "enthusiasts". I have worked in sports and wildlife photography and would use a Canon 7D, Canon's Professional APS-C unit for the specific benefits it offers in distance work, but I also, as an enthusiast use full frame bodies - still you would have to get pretty close to tell the difference.

Frankly I don't know if and when Canon will upgrade the 28-300L, but if they could work the same magic they did on the 100-400MK1 - MKII I would personally be very interested to see it. Canon is a rather large organization, so I am optimistic that, since it is an L lens and is one of their oldest, at some stage they will do an update; and being a large organization I hope they can manage to work on more than one lens at a time.

One other lens I personally would like to see get a makeover, moving it to L standards, is the 15-85mm lens. It is a great little package as a walk-around unit and has been called the "secret L series lens" by DPReview because of its great performance - and the ones I have used confirm that. It is not built to the same standards as the L - so is not environmentally sealed or as robust, but if they ever did a workup on that it would be quite a cool tool.

[Tronhard]

Hi Richard:

It's a tough one I agree... It's horses for courses...
The primes should render brilliant results within their range, yet the zooms offer much more flexibility.

I guess some questions deserve to be considered:
What is your budget?
What kinds of photography do you do, and what implications does that have for the use of F-Focal lenses or zooms
What are you prepared to carry?
(critically), what kind of output do you intend?
That one deserves some extra consideration, along with the others.
If you want large, high-quality prints (or you're a pixel-peeper) then you bite the bullet and get the best gear you can afford and suffer carrying it around.
If you want to produce for digital media you can get away with a much more modest investment and go for the compactness of zooms
If you want to do moderate-size prints then something more compact and modest.

The killer is that sometimes we move up and down in our expectations and requirements, so we collect more gear!

[William W]

Hi Trev,

You gave your opinion on what you would like Canon to do and I gave my opinion on what I think Canon will not do and I gave my reasons why I think that. It's puzzling why there would be any issue with that.

The key message was omitted from the quote that you selected.

The omission of the quote in total could lead to the meaning of my opinion being misinterpreted.

The meaning is not solely about weight.

The meaning is a combination of many points. There are many facets as to why I think that many "enthusiasts" don't want to spend money on the 28 to 300L.

This opinion is now re-iterated below and segmented for clarity and bold for the key points:

many/most?/all? Amateur Photographers, who are ‘serious’ just don’t want to carry 1.6Kg weight (the 28 to 300L);
> 　and pay a premium price for an L Series lens with the (inherent) limitations of an x11 Zoom,
＞　when there are so many options of buying a combination of two lenses,
>　about equal in total weight;
＞　sometimes/(always?) less in price
>　and better in overall image quality, across a similar zoom compass

"Enthusiast" is a descriptive term, separating those who are being paid to shoot from those who are not.

" 'serious' " was written within apostrophe to indicate its removed meaning (removed to the next clause in the sentence): i.e. those 'serious' enough to spend a lot of money on a lens.

*

The fellows in the Grandstand were mainly all Dad's of the Players.

We talk before the game and at Half-time - we have common interests - Sport and Photography - very chatty.

Most used 7D's and one had a 50D. I do not recall any 135 or APS-H Format Cameras. It's fairly typical to leverage the FoV using an APS-C Camera with the 100 to 400 and it works well for Sports when shooting from the Grandstand. They were all using the EF 100 to 400L, that's why mentioned it - it is a really popular lens for that type of shooting - I see some at indoor swimming events too, usually on 7D's or 7DMkII - again the APS-C Camera leverages the FoV when one is only allowed to shoot from to shoot from a fixed position in the Grandstand and not have access to the Pool Deck or the Field or Sideline.

*

BTW: the 400/2.8L that I use - I do not own it, no point spending the money because I borrow it at a very reasonable price, and I certainly don't have gear fetish and I neither judge people by what gear they use or buy - as it happens I use a 20D quite a lot of the time.

WW

[Tronhard]

Hi Bill:

I understand more about your anecdotal experience with more information that you provided explaining how you knew the lenses and cameras were as they were and that is much appreciated - I have been jaded by people who make sweeping statements based on a very dubious anecdotal experience, but yours seems much more robust. The use of the quotes had exactly the opposite impact on me (perhaps cultural differences), so I was under the impression you were emphasizing the word rather than being ironic.


I own a bunch of lenses and I completely agree that for many people two other lenses may well hold advantages for them over the one. Still, for some who are, for one reason or another, constrained in how much gear they can carry, a super-zoom has its advantages depending on the kind of photography one is engaged upon. For example, I do multi-day hikes with a fairly big pack, so lugging along the bulk to store two or more lenses (and as I mentioned bodies) is not one of my preferences. Furthermore restrictions put on carry-on baggage by airlines can also make taking more than the minimum kit with me (I refuse to leave my cameras to the tender mercies of baggage handlers). There is definitely a market out there for travellers and tourists considering the proliferation of such lenses from companies like Tamron, Tokina and Sigma. As I alluded to, it is bulk rather then weight that is my issue. Obviously Canon put their superzoom unit out long ago, and with an L designation one would assume with some market research to back up such an expensive exercise. I stick to Canon gear exclusively, so if I was going for an all-in-one again I would hope to find an improved version of the current 28-300L. I might add that I use multiple lenses and bodies when I have an advantage in doing so, so I am not trying to be one-eyed in my liking of this unit.

In another post within this thread to another Bill (this can be confusing!) I commented on the importance of the output. I don't sell my photos any more, but I do have standards that I consider fairly high and the 28-300 unit I have does give amazing results. I have tried comparing it to the 70-300L (a great and fairly light lens) in the same range and find it holds its own. Perhaps I am extremely fortunate that the unit I got cheaply as a second-hand one is a good build - but I would expect that from an L series.

So, I have to ask... I have tried to look up your location and can't find it. Is it a play on words for Australia???

[pnodrog]

It is possible if you analyse Bill's style of writing very carefully detect that he most likely comes from a south Sydney suburb. However he is definitely (the spell checker offered defiantly which off course is another option) from Sraylya....

I must confess I use a Nikon 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR1 about 80% of the time. I know it is slightly softer than some of my other lenses but at the maximum size my photographs are viewed at nobody has ever come up to me and said that it is a bit soft. One photo has been used by N.Z. Golf in a A2 poster and by my club on a 1.2m x 3.6m roadside sign. Had I known it was to be used at that size I may have used another lens but photographers tend to forget that the most important thing is to get a well exposed and in focus shot of something people find interesting and like. Being ultra sharp with the "sting" a top lens can give is usually only secondary and is often only appreciated by other keen photographers. The main downside of the lens is a very slight chromatic aberration that was not detectable on my D200 but is pixel peeping on the D800. However this and a slight pin cushion distortion at wider angles are easily rectified in PP.

One important benefit is I don't miss many shots because I am changing lenses and I hardly ever need to clean the sensor. The difference in weight is not a big factor but leaving the camera bag in the car most of the time is a bonus on a hot day when I am in Sraylya.

[Tronhard]

I must admit the Nikon super zooms are a lot lighter and more compact that the Canon version seems to be.

I am culturally confused... I have four passports and a lot of time in different counties, thus I am a foreigner wherever I go!

I agree about changing lenses through... last year, when I was in Victoria, BC, I was roused from my bed at 7:00am with the news that a cougar was wandering around my neighbourhood. Now where I live is right by the coast with the city all around me, so not near any wilderness. They come into town chasing the deer that work their way through the suburbs eating people's gardens...

I grabbed two cameras that were attached to lenses - I had a 24-105 and 100-400, both on APS-C bodies. Eventually I tracked down the beast a couple of blocks from where I live. The media scrum was there and I was taking photos of them as they watched the efforts of police and conservations officers as they tried to find the animal. As I walked away from the action the cougar loped across the road within 20m of me. I had the 100-400 in my hands but it was too close to follow with the lens and frankly too fast for me, so all I got was a couple of shaky shots. Later, as I followed progress I was in the middle of switching cameras - at the worst time, as I had one camera in each hand, both with lens caps on, the cougar came within 5m. If I had just the one lens I would have been ready... go figure! So yes, definitely there are times when less is more as regards the number of bits of gear!

[William W]

For a K1 W1 Paul was very close: my dialect is from a Southern Sydney Suburb (not South Sydney Suburb). There is a difference. I live on the edge of the National Park, where Kookaburras chuckle and a family of Blue Tongue Lizards live under the house. South Sydney Suburbs are more akin to “city stuff” and have definitively - no Kookaburras. However in your detective work it seems that you didn't follow the simplest lead and that would have been to read my Bio here . . . yes it states that I live in Australia . . .

Your Post #9 does, in my opinion add credence to my general theory: the 28 to 300 is a specialty lens bought by specialists for special purposes. It’s an oddment if you will – out of the mainstream. That’s neither bad nor good nor right nor wrong – it just simply: is.

It is an oxymoron. Pay a truckload of money for a really good super-zoom, when the mainstream position of most of those serious enough to spend a truckload of money on any lens, would be (or is?) to avoid super-zooms, altogether.

Victoria BC is a wonderful place. I worked there on the ‘94 Games. I have my Klee Wyck hanging in my office.

I am glad you better understand different writing styles and their nuances. It’s worthwhile so to do. CiC is full of wonderful people, some quirky and mostly all are sincere. It’s sometimes difficult on first sweep to get the gist of the body language; the timbre and the tone – it’s easier to do that in a pub, or in a boardroom.

Take care,

Bill

[Tronhard]

For a K1 W1 Paul was very close: my dialect is from a Southern Sydney Suburb (not South Sydney Suburb). There is a difference. I live on the edge of the National Park, where Kookaburras chuckle and a family of Blue Tongue Lizards live under the house. South Sydney Suburbs are more akin to “city stuff” and have definitively - no Kookaburras. However in your detective work it seems that you didn't follow the simplest lead and that would have been to read my Bio here . . . yes it states that I live in Australia . . .

It’s sometimes difficult on first sweep to get the gist of the body language; the timbre and the tone – it’s easier to do that in a pub, or in a boardroom.

Bill

Hi Bill:

Sorry if I seemed over-reactive - I DID misread your "body language"! Actually the written medium is always a challenge as we lost both the tone of voice and the body language of a person in our presence. One can say something like "don't you look nice in that outfit!". It could be meant sincerely or with sarcasm, and without further context one would have to guess from the rest of the dialogue.

Anyway, on to other things:

Without starting a whole new thread, have you used the 15-85 lens? It is currently limited to APS-C, but would be great if one could make it an L-series. That one is neither horrendously expensive, nor really specialist. It just takes great photos.


This is just an image of Auckland City waterfront taken from a beach across the harbour. I used lens corrections in LightRoom and a minimal sharpening effect

[William W]

Don't sweat it: ‘twas all cleared up by Post #9.

*

Glad you think my new outfit is nice - I think I look a little bit fat in it, though. . . SO what do you really think?

*

I haven't used the EF-S15 to 18, but know a Bloke who does and he loves it. Araldited* to his 7D, I think. From what I see (and read) it is like the EF85/1.8 - "excellent value for money, great IQ, one of Canons ‘sleeper’ lenses in the economy range". (*Dunno if Araldite is available in Canarda - it is sticky stuff the bond is very difficult to break once it is set.)

***

Trivia and Tit-bits and other things about Lenses –

Not sure whether you meant that the existing 15 to 85 should be an L Series Lens or if you meant that you’d like Canon to make another L Series lens in that zoom compass with an EF-S mount: either way that can’t happen. One criterion (probably the primary criterion) of qualifying for L Series is that the Lens must be able to mount to all the cameras of the particular SERIES.

> The current Canon Series is “EOS”
> The LENS MOUNT which is common across that Series is “EF”
> “EF-S” is (merely) a sub-set of “EF”
> “EF-S” Lenses canNOT mount to ALL the cameras in the EOS Series
> Therefore no EF-S lens can ever be designated an “L Series” Lens

*

Another oddment which is not often realized is that: third party APS-C specific lenses made to fit Canon EOS Cameras (i.e. those with an image circle specifically for APS-C Cameras) are all EF Mount Lenses: often incorrectly referred to as EF-S Lenses, these third party lenses will mount and will work on all canon EOS cameras, often with varying degrees of optical vignette at various Focal Lengths, but nonetheless useful in an emergency.

*

I moved my own gear to Canon, from the dark side, (mainly influenced by CPN vs. the Nikon alternative at the time), when we cut over our 135 Format Cameras in our Studio from Film to Digital. One cornerstone of my thinking was to have Dual Format Digital Kits.

(Dual Format / ISO selection at the spin of a wheel / Simultaneous B&W and Colour Capture – were, in my opinion, at the time to be the three revolutionary technological advancements which would re-order the way Photography Businesses and Professional Photographers would construct.

As it turned out, I think history places much more emphasis on the Photographer doing Post Production and thus replacing the Darkroom Lab Technician, as being the major revolutionary change and thus the aforementioned three elements are mostly now forgotten – or never considered by many who scribe history or wax lyrical on their blog or other channels of the www. That's an unfortunate example of mishistory by omission.)

(Back to Dual Format Kits) – having decided that all our Studio kits (four of them, initially) would be Dual Format; considering we were looking at a reasonably large Capital Expenditure, I really had to sharpen up my accountant’s pencil when it came to the Lens’ Inventory. I decided that meant absolutely no room for any EF-S Lenses – for several reasons the main being it would be fiscally irresponsible to invest Capital into any tool which could not work on ALL and ANY camera at hand.

However, the best laid plans . . . whilst maybe being a minor irresponsibility, over the years beginning from 2004 and moving through replacing the 20D's with 30D's and then 50D's, it often became too tempting not to buy the “Kit” as opposed to the “Body Only”, especially when the “Kit” became “On Sale” for only a few dollars more than the “Body Only”. Hence, even after shedding many, I still have a collection of various models of the Canon 18 to 55 “Kit Lenses”. I have become quite passionate about them and an advocate for the Kit Lens, especially in response to questions on forums like: “I just bought my first DSLR with the rubbish Kit Lens, what lens do you suggest I upgrade to?” I even stick-up for the Nikon Kit Lens, too.

*

There was a time when I was really was tempted to buy two EF-S 17 to 55F/2.8 IS USM lenses for the Studio Kits. I used this lens extensively and it is a very good lens; but I am glad I didn’t buy any because whilst very good it is not an inexpensive lens and does not warrant the Capital Outlay as a Business choice for any Dual Format Kit. I think however the 15 to 85 does in some circumstances. If we still owned the Studio and were running five 135 Dual Format Digital Kits, I would be very tempted to have a couple of EF-S 15 to 85, mainly for use by a Second Shooter: considering our Second Shooters were always Students and generally Students adapt well to using a wide compass Zoom Lens (and no lens changes) on their (several) initial Professional outings.

The point of "no lens changes" returns to the subject of your EF28 to 300 (and the EF35 to 350L I once used and Paul's Nikon 28 to 300) . . . the ability NOT to have to change lenses can be a very big consideration and may be a substantial advantage - and not only for the experienced Photographer delegating to a Student, but also for some occasions for the experienced Photographer too. Although personally I really would have to be pushed to, in 2016, buy any Varying Maximum Aperture Zoom Lens, I can see that the 15 to 85 would certainly (and does obviously) have a place in many APS-C kits whether those kits are being used for either enthusiast or pro shooting.

My NOT liking to work with any VMA Zooms is mainly premised on much of my Photography life is moving quickly through different lighting scenarios whilst shooting of the hop. I don't want the added necessity of watching the Tv variance caused by zooming, so to alleviate mistakes apropos Subject Motion Blur and/or Flash Sync Speed. The change in Aperture when zooming and thus having to re-calculate the DoF for a particular framing is also an annoyance I would rather live without.

*

If I had bought that 35 to 350L to use on that assignment, I expect that I would still have that lens today: and I would use it too - for the very reason of "not to have lens changes". I am reasonably certain I would not have upgraded to a 28 to 300L unless I could have secured a very good selling price for the 35 to 350L and I doubt that would have been the case, (mainly for the reason that I repeat - it’s a specialist lens and not many people want to spend the money on it). Different case for the 100 to 400 though; when the MkII arrived on the scene I know a couple of fellows who upgraded whilst still securing a very good price for their 100 to 400, considering the age of it and use that they had from it.

*

My "no lens changes" lens now, is my 24 to 105/4L IS. It has fallen into being my "no lens changes lens". I bought it as my "luxury" for travel photos (i.e. personal vacation snaps). (Read 'I think Bill was becoming lazy and he didn't want to carry two, 2.8 zooms away on holidays anymore'.) I obtained the 24 to 105 at a really good price as it was one of many being split by dealers buying "Kits" and then splitting them . . . that's probably considered naughty by Canon. Anyway, it might be a tad of laziness creeping in, but I find that the 24 to 105/4 IS makes for a really good walk around lens all the time and unless leaving the office to shoot for a specific purpose I tend to carry that lens on 5 Series and no camera bag . . . which, as Paul mentions, is really good for these bloody hot days in Strayla. 24 is very wide and 105 is long enough for me: if I really want longer I just walk closer and/or crop very harshly. (For those reading this who don't know: NEITHER walking closer NOR cropping will provide the same result as using a longer lens, (e.g. the 28 to 300), and I wasn't implying that it would I am simply stating that's my choice of technique when using the 24 to 105 for many of my casual shots.)

*

Developing the "no lens change" theme of this conversation, I am becoming more passionate about my Fuji X100s and it really does travel everywhere with me and it is extremely difficult to change the lens . . . but that is really a different topic. Suffice to state: the simplicity of the basics photography the Fuji provides and using great technology packaged in a quirky and beautiful unit with a superior optic, is very refreshing and exhilarating. My most recent iteration being rekindling my passion for IR.

That's all. Coffee time.

WW

[Cantab]

A fascinating discussion. I checked the price of the EFS 15-85: $999.99 at my local store's website.
Although I have a few primes, the lens that lives on my camera is the kit lens, 18-200. The next most used lens is the 100-400 mkI; it would be nice to have the mkII but I'd need to win the lottery first (and I never buy any tickets).

[William W]

Neither do I, (buy lottery tickets). It's just about same chance of winning 1st Prize if you do buy - or - don't buy, I reckon.

[Tronhard]

Don't sweat it: ‘twas all cleared up by Post #9.

I haven't used the EF-S15 to 18, but know a Bloke who does and he loves it. Araldited* to his 7D, I think. From what I see (and read) it is like the EF85/1.8 - "excellent value for money, great IQ, one of Canons ‘sleeper’ lenses in the economy range". (*Dunno if Araldite is available in Canarda - it is sticky stuff the bond is very difficult to break once it is set.)


Not sure whether you meant that the existing 15 to 85 should be an L Series Lens or if you meant that you’d like Canon to make another L Series lens in that zoom compass with an EF-S mount:


Another oddment which is not often realized is that: third party APS-C specific lenses made to fit Canon EOS Cameras (i.e. those with an image circle specifically for APS-C Cameras) are all EF Mount Lenses: often incorrectly referred to as EF-S Lenses, these third party lenses will mount and will work on all canon EOS cameras, often with varying degrees of optical vignette at various Focal Lengths, but nonetheless useful in an emergency.


(Back to Dual Format Kits) – having decided that all our Studio kits (four of them, initially) would be Dual Format; considering we were looking at a reasonably large Capital Expenditure, I really had to sharpen up my accountant’s pencil when it came to the Lens’ Inventory. I decided that meant absolutely no room for any EF-S Lenses – for several reasons the main being it would be fiscally irresponsible to invest Capital into any tool which could not work on ALL and ANY camera at hand.

There was a time when I was really was tempted to buy two EF-S 17 to 55F/2.8 IS USM lenses for the Studio Kits. I used this lens extensively and it is a very good lens; but I am glad I didn’t buy any because whilst very good it is not an inexpensive lens

WW

Hi Bill:


I shortened your quote to the bare minimum just for space reasons in case someone wants to follow my comments.

Knowing that L series lenses fit full-frame bodies, I was musing over the idea that it would be nice if Canon make an L (Non-APS-C: full-frame and sealed) lens in the 15-85mm range. It has without doubt worked excellently on my APS-C bodies (and yes I accept the fact that it is actually giving me about 25-130mm in effect), especially my 60D and 7D units. But, like you, I like the inherent quality of an L lens - they feel more solid, work on any Canon body, and aspire to be dust and moisture resistant. So to reiterate I would like a 15-85mm range with all the trimmings of an L.


Back in the early 80's I was shooting film (transparencies actually) and because of the types of photography I was doing (technical but also travel, wildlife and scenic) I had both Nikon F3's and Canon A-1's, with Tamron SP-Adaptall lenses attached. From memory: 17-55, 35-80 and 75-300mm, plus a 135 portrait lens and a 10mm wide angle. With those bodies I traveled around Australia over about two years doing a lot of scenic, travel and wildlife work. I took probably about 3 x 36 rolls of transparency per day and from there whittled down to the saleable ones.
Sadly when I went to Canada, someone stole my car, found the slide collection and burned them on the side of the road. I was gutted...


When I went to digital, mixing body types was something that I could not really do, so I had to make a choice. Not so much for the bodies themselves: they change annually it seems and one brand will surge ahead then be superseded by a competitor. I based my choice on the glass and for me that was the 70-200L 2.8Mk II. Gorgeous lens, and that of course committed me to Canon - although I still like and respect Nikon in particular. Since my start I have got the following APS-C lenses (yes, some as kit bargains!): 10-20mm, 15-85, 18-135STM, 60mm and 100mm Macro. On the L side I have the 17-40, 24-105, 70-200-2.8MkII, 70-300L, 100-400MkII, and of course the dreaded 28-300! I did have a 17-55mm, but decided that I could not afford to keep it if I wanted the 100-400MkII, so I sold it, as I did my 100-400MkI.

The thing is that I have not sold my old bodies when perhaps I should, and now it is probably not worth it, despite the fact that they have very few actuations. So I still have the following left: 400D, 500D, 600D, 650D x2, 60Dx3, 7D and 5DMkIII. Ironically some great photos have come out of the 400D with the 28-300mm attached. I still even have all the packaging, so maybe I shall start my own digital museum! Now that I am semi-retired I cannot justified bodies like the new 1DxMkII, but I am very happy with my 5DMkIII – maybe the 7DMkII, but we’ll see. I am still working to get the best out of the bodies I have so I’m not feeling pressured.





The attached photo, taken on my 400D body with the 28-300mm lens is of the start of the Tans Canada Highway 01, which begins about 300mm from my Victoria apartment. The statue is of Terry Fox, a young chap who had lost one leg to cancer and tried to run across Canada to raise funds for cancer research. Sadly he died part way along, but across Canada each year there is a Terry Fox memorial run. The placing of the statue a bit back from the highway’s end is somewhat poignant.

[William W]

. . . I was musing over the idea that it would be nice if Canon make an L (Non-APS-C: full-frame and sealed) lens in the 15-85mm range. . . (and yes I accept the fact that it is actually giving me about 25-130mm in effect) . . . So to reiterate I would like a 15-85mm range with all the trimmings of an L.

Still not absolutely sure whether you mean you’d like a 15 to 85L Lens or a 28 to 130L Lens. I assume the former, because there is already: 24 to 105/4L IS which fits the latter.

So, if you mean you would like a 15 to 85L (that would mount on a 135 Format Body), then I think that would be a big ask. Very difficult to get that zoom compass (beginning from 15~16mm) to 85mm with an image circle coverage for 135 Format. Realistically, unless we expect an huge price tag, the 16 to 35L and the 17 to 40L are about at the limit (35~40mm) at the telephoto end, perhaps a 17 to 50 F/4 IS could be achieved for a reasonable price.

*

. . . like you, I like the inherent quality of an L lens - they feel more solid, work on any Canon body, and aspire to be dust and moisture resistant.

It is not so much that the inherent quality or solid feel of L Series Lenses has driven my lens choice.

"aspire" is a good word to use. I do NOT and have never reckoned "dust and moisture resistance" in my lens purchase decisions at all: no Canon lens is "weather sealed" (the common term which is used) without the special Canon Filter on it (and when it is attached to a Canon "weather sealed" body). Canon also requires rigid compliance apropos the servicing of the seals on the camera bodies and lenses - it's all in the fine print. I use big green rubbish bags and large rubber bands - that works for me.

My main purchase criterion has usually always been lens speed, then, secondly, value for money and usage per $ spent. The second criterion of value for money and (more importantly) usage per $ spent would often become the casting vote for a purchase. All the lenses I have purchased, except the last two, were business purchases, for either me as an Employee or for the business by me as the Director of it. So, for example, as a result I do NOT own either of the EF 85 F/1.2L lenses because the 85/1.8 represents much more value for money and is still a very fast lens.

Similarly the EF 50/1.0L and to a lesser extent the EF50/1.2L, do not represent the anywhere near the usage per $ spend as does the EF50/1.4 . . . so I own the EF50/1.4.

On the other hand the EF 135F/2, for my amount of usage and also being one stop faster, was an easy purchase choice when comparing it to the EF 135/2.8SF.

Also as I mentioned previously I don’t own the 400/2.8L which I often use, simply because the COST of it laying idle X hours per week, is much MUCH more than the cost of what I pay to borrow one – and I am still in front fiscally if those relative costs were tabulated since 2004.

And as I have mentioned, I avoid Varying Maximum Aperture Zoom Lenses, so that really only leaves L Series Zooms remaining for my choice. Additionally when considering the value I place on Lens Speed – to get an F/2.8 Zoom in Canon EF Series, one simply MUST buy an L Lens.

Business and personal buying criteria are (should be) predicted differently.

*

. . . some great photos have come out of the 400D with the 28-300mm attached.

We have a 400D. It is used regularly and often with the EF 35/2. Nice camera, tad limited in High ISO, but ours is still functioning OK and reliably churns out good files.

*

The story of Terry Fox is interesting – I just researched read about him – thanks.

WW

[Tronhard]

Hi Bill:

Well, since all lenses are identified in their focal length as for a full-frame sensor, a lens labelled as 15-85mm should be 15-85mm on a full frame and effectively 1.6x that on an APS-C body. The fact that lenses are limited in their attachment to an APS-C body doesn't really change what's written on the lens. So... I WISH (this after all began as a somewhat wistful discussion!) that they would make a 15-85mm lens that would render that range on a full-frame body and is built to L-series standards - and yes, the word ASPIRE was deliberately chosen because I know of nothing that is weatherproof, short of a military-grade case or underwater unit, and even then... Right now that wish may be a long reach, but I recall in the mid 1980's a major photography magazine ran an April Fools story on a new lens that had a focal length range of 20-300mm, with a low f-value and amazing resolution. Everyone thought it was incredibly funny because the idea was so utterly ridiculous, but today we are making real inroads towards that. So, maybe before I finally kick the bucket there will be something on the market...

I DO understand your criteria for wanting a constant f-factor, mine is not in that context much of the time. Since I have to carry my own gear, sometimes very long distances, I am looking for good performance over a fairly wide range and I tend to take photos in good lighting conditions and a constant f-stop is not so critical to me. Mind you, that is the good thing about any customer group - they have different benefit needs and priorities, which at least provides a market for a wide range of products, otherwise we might have very few choices at all!

I still take my older bodies "out for a walk" with various lenses. Sometimes I don't go out with a specific object in mind, perhaps just exercise, but almost always with a camera in my hand.

Good to chat with you...