|
Image
quality comparison : 28-300 L and 24-105
L
I was curious to compare
the 28-300 with my 24-105: the 24-105 is
a much more limited zoom, so I expected
better image quality. But how big is the
difference? I have tested the lenses on
my Canon 1Ds MarkIII (21 megapixel, FF).
The lenses was mounted on tripod; I have
used mirror lock up and self timer. The
following images are 100% crop from the
unprocessed RAW file. I have tested the
lenses both wide open and at f/11.
24/28mm,
wide open:
|
|
center |
corner |
|
24-105 |
 |
 |
|
28-300 |
 |
 |
24/28mm,
f/11:
|
|
center |
corner |
|
24-105 |
 |
 |
|
28-300 |
 |
 |
First, note that the
test target is slightly different,
because the 28-300 at 28mm has very
poor reproduction ratio
capabilities, and even my large test
target was not big enough to fill
the frame, while in the 24-105 test
I was able to fill the frame with
the test target at every focal
length. Nevertheless, it is not
difficult to compare the results.
Wide open, the 24-105 has some
advantage, in particular in the
corners (but there is not a night
and day difference). At f/11,
instead, the two lenses give almost
identical image quality (the 24-105
is still a little better in the
extreme corners, but in real life it
would be nearly impossible to tell
which photo is taken with the 24-105
or 28-300).
105mm, wide
open:
|
|
center |
corner |
|
24-105 |
 |
 |
|
28-300 |
 |
 |
105mm, f/11:
|
|
center |
corner |
|
24-105 |
 |
 |
|
28-300 |
 |
 |
At 105mm, the 24-105 is
clearly better than the 28-300, wide open -
it has more contrast and much sharper
corners. At f/11, instead, they are nearly
identical - actually, the 28-300 show a
little less chromatic aberration.
Overall, the results are as
expected - the 24-105 is a bit better (it
has a much less extreme zoom range!), but
even the 28-300 is not bad, considering that
it is a 11x zoom!
Samples and comments
These are some sample
photos taken with the 28-300 L IS on
Canon 1DsIII. You can download the full
size JPEGs; remember that these JPEG are
images without any post processing and
they are converted from RAW with neutral
setting (minimum contrast, no
sharpening, low saturation). With good
post processing, you can improve
considerably the photos!
The image quality is
pretty good for a superzoom, both at the
wide end and at the tele end, in
particular in the center. For macro
work, instead, it is quite disappointing
- at 1:3 the image is quite soft, in
spite of the f/16 aperture.
Even though Canon does
not recommend to use teleconverters,
I was curious to test this lens with the
Canon 2xII TC. Canon states that the
28-300 is not compatible with TCs, but
actually you can use them at focal
lengths of 50mm or more: you just have
to pay attention to not zoom back to
50mm or shorter settings, otherwise you
may damage the lens. I mounted the TC
and I tried a photo at 600mm, stopping
down to f/18 for maximum image quality.
The lens does not see the
teleconverters, so it is not reported in
the exif and it does not show when you
select the aperture - so by selecting
f/9 I was actually at f/18. The result
is impressive, the image still has
decent sharpness! But in practice this
combination is almost unusable due to
very poor or no AF and due to the small
apertures needed for good sharpness.
Conclusions
I don't think that the
28-300 can be really compared with the
other super zooms: they are targeted to
two different groups of people. The
Canon 18-200 IS, the Tamron 28-300 and
the other super-zooms are for those who
want small and light all around lenses;
mainly amateurs and travel
photographers. The Canon 28-300 IS
instead is clearly a lens for
professionals, mainly sport
photographers and photojournalists, who
need the maximum versatility is spite of
large size, weight, and small loss of
image quality compared with shorter
zooms as the 24-105mm f/4 L IS or the
70-200mm f/2.8 L IS.
Even in the
field of nature photography, the 28-300
can be used for a wide range of
subjects, from landscape to macro and
wildlife. The renowned nature
photographer Joe Mc Donald is a big fan
of this lens - I highly recommend to
give a look to his
test report. Its
range of focal length is ideal on a FF
camera - on the Canon 5D2 or 1Ds3 you
have everything from wide angle to a
good tele. If you need more focal
length, you can even use this lens with
a 1.4x TC to get a 420mm f/8, even
though there will be a visible loss of
image quality. On APS-C cameras as the Canon 7D,
you get the equivalent of a 48-480mm, so
you lose the "all around" character of
the 28-300, and you need to couple this
lens with wide angle, as the Sigma 10-20
or the Canon 10-22. The only advantage
of APS-C cameras is that they use the
"sweet spot" of the 28-300, that is the
central area, so you won't see softness
in the corners. That said, I think that
overall this lens fits much better a FF
camera than and APS.
Do you
have comments or questions?
If you have comments or
questions about this article, feel free to
ask in the
Juza Nature Photography Discussion Forum!
|
