skeebum9

I'm looking for a compact zoom, all around lens for my Canon 5DM4, something close to 28-250mm. I already have the Canon 70-200 F2.8 and I love it, but sometimes, in travel photo workshops, there is little time to switch and the fast feature is not that critical. My friend uses a Nikon 28-300 (approx) and gets great results and that lens is quite small!! I noticed Canon's version is more of a walnut cracker. Any suggestions?

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Canon doesn't have this type of lens, similar to the Nikon. The best is the L version. There was talk a year or so ago about a vII of the 28-300L. But, the emphasis on high quality lenses for the RF platform maybe has delayed or even killed an update to the 28-300L.

Nothing will cover the range, but two thoughts on size & weight: a) EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM b) EF 70-200mm f/4L USM

You already have a 70-200. Honestly, these other ideas are redundant and only accomplish a physically lighter lens. Both are great options, great AF performance. Both have the same issue of no wide option. Another lighter option is the EF 24-105mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM, lacks constant aperture, but also lacks size and weight over bigger L version. Gives a wide option. Just crop from the 30MP for the 'zoom' missing beyond 105mm.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

Not sure what suggestions you are looking for. My utility lens on my 5DmkIV is an EF 28-300L and my utility lens on my D7200 is a Nikkor 28-300. It is a very versatile focal range. There's a big difference between the two lenses. I don't know if I'd call the Nikkor lens small, but it's certainly smaller than the Canon. The Canon lens also costs more the twice that of the Nikkor lens. It is built to take pretty much anywhere in pretty much any condition, excluding underwater, and allow the user to take excellent photos. It's not the sharpest lens there is but it is plenty sharp enough. Sure it's definitely heavier than the Nikkor lens but I wouldn't advise using it to crack open hard shelled nuts of any kind.
It's a great lens. There are two kind of people out there, those who love the lens and those who never owned one. Most of the latter don't understand the lens and many of those believe it is a dust pumper, which it's not.
If you are comfortable with the size and weight of the EF 70-200L then you should have no problem with the EF 28-300L.
Mine rarely comes off my 5D IV, but when it does it usually ends up on my 5DSr, my 80D or my 7D II.

skeebum9

I looked at the EF28-300L and it is a bit bulky, yes, a bit redundant to my 70-200F2.8L, Sigma has one, but only for the cropped sensor bodies, I guess I'm looking for a white fly!

Selene03

I pretty much agree with what Chg Canon had to say. I had the Nikon 28-300 lens when I was shooting Nikon. It was ok, but I always found it a little soft. Still I knew photographers who could get really good shots from it and I envied their ability to be able to go just about everywhere with a single lens. With this in mind, I got the Canon version. I used it on two fairly substantial photo trips then sold it. I found it way too big and heavy to be a "walk-around" lens like the Nikon version (though a big guy probably wouldn't notice the weight). It was a good lens and much sharper than the Nikon version so that is a plus, but I needed a lens I could climb rocks with, and this definitely was too heavy for that kind of hiking. Most recently, I used the Sony 24-240 with a sony a7riii. Almost everyone will point out that it is Sony's worst lens, but I found it better than the Nikon long lens though not quite as good as the Canon lens. That solution, of course, would involve a whole other camera and lens (though might be had for not much more than the Canon lens new).

I know Canon has an rf 24-240 in the works. I am hoping it will be as good as their 28-300 and as light as the Sony lens. In the meantime for a light daily Canon kit, I have been using the 16-35 f4 and the 70-300 USM II that CHG Canon mentioned. It is not perfect, but it is light enough to climb with.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

None of the superzooms will beat the 70-200, and at 300mm the 28-300 Canon L is just ok, but a lot better than the Nikon. If you really need 300, get a 300mmF4. Or even a 1.4X for the70-200. At 280mm and F4, it will run rings around 10X zoom lenses.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

I don't understand why so many people say the EF 28-300L is too big and heavy. It weighs just under 3.7 pounds and I personally don't find that too heavy for hiking. 3.7 pounds for the best lens in its class doesn't sound too bad to me and it has never stopped me from taking it anywhere. I'll admit that there have been times that after lifting the lens several hundred times in a few hours to take photos, the weight does indeed become quite noticable but, the results have always been worth it.

bhaessler

Tamron makes a 28-300 for a Canon full frame. It’s very lightweight, but not as sharp as a Canon lens.

BillyP Loc: Cedar Point, NC

I have the Tamron 28-300 that I use as a walking around lens on my 5D4. It produces some nice images but I pull out some of my Canon L glass in the appropriate range if I am wanting tack sharp images.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Some lenses from the past:

Tokina / Promaster spectrum 7 - 24-200 3.5-5.6

Sigma 24-135 2.8-4.5

Tamron 28-300 - I think there are a couple versions ....

Tamron 24-135 3.5-5.6

Canon 28-300 L - old and dated but being L makes it "OK" - same weight as the 100-400 II and very expensive !

..

47greyfox Loc: on the edge of the Colorado front range

Don't forget that the Tamron 28-300 F/3.5-6.3 Di VC PZD lens lists at $700, while the Canon 28-300 F/3.5-5.6L IS USM clocks in at $2449 ($1959 Canon refurb). Only you can decide.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

So, what are the odds a $2400 lens is a better lens than a $700 lens?!

The Tamron isn't even an SP series lens, Tamron's best quality, where as the Canon is an L series, Canon's best quality, and among some of the highest quality lenses made.

To me, the only decision is, can I afford the superior lens.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

I'm not sure if being a 15 year old design makes it old and dated. Glass lasts far, far longer than bodies. Although it would be nice if Canon came out with a version II of the 28-300L. And, being a Canon L series lens doesn't just make it "ok", it makes it the best of the 5 lenses on the list and the best 28-300 lens currently available.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Saying it is OK is a compliment ! - especially relative to the options....but OK will cost you $$$$

Looking at the MTF curves is what makes it just OK relative to ALL other lenses.....
.

47greyfox Loc: on the edge of the Colorado front range

Precisely! One of the reasons that the Tamron 28-300 is so popular is that there isn't anything else in that range that's full frame except for the Canon. For many, the Tamron is more than a viable alternative for less than a 1/3 of the Canon cost.