Canon 35-350mm L Lens

[TimNYC]

Seriously considering purchasing this lens to use for Sports Photography and Wildlife Photography.
Any users with pros and cons ?
Thanks for your replies.

[DAMphyne]

My Boss uses that lens for sports photography, portraits
just about everything she shoots. She Loves it!
I'm not sure myself about the Push-me Pull-you Zoom, I suppose it's just a matter of getting used to it, but she won't let me have it long enough to try.
Good Luck

[BobbyC]

I've looked into it and the only negative I can see is the slow f3.5-5.6 aperature. For the price, that's a little slow for me. I guess it just depends on the kind of shooting you do. The optics are superb.

[mattchase]

I had this lens for a little over a year before finally parting with it. It is a great lens, the zoom range can't be beat, and the optics are superb. Focus was silent and quick. And at about 135mm, it would focus down to 1:4 macro, which is pretty decent.

On the other hand, sharpness was not as good as most other L lenses. It is a sharp lens, just not tack sharp like other L lenses. But given the focal range, this is an understandable compromise. The push pull zoom is ok, I actually found myself not liking it over time, as opposed to getting used to it, but that is going to be different for everybody. The biggest problem for me that is what caused me to part with it was that I needed a 2.8 lens for my sports and concert photography. The 3.5 at the wide end was ok, but as soon as you start zooming, you go to 4.5 then 5.6, and that was just too slow for pretty much any sports at night, and many concerts.

I liked the lens overall, as I said I had it for a little over a year, but in the end replaced it with a 70-200 2.8 and 1.4x TC. About the only thing I really miss about the 35-350mm is just that, 35-350mm in one lens, and it was optically very good. If you are doing mainly daytime photos (sports or otherwise), I wouldn't have a problem recommending this lens. But if you are going to be doing night sports, concerts, or other action events after dark (without flash), then you are going to run into some problems with the slow apertures.

[CyberDyneSystems]

If you can swing for the 100-400 IS, it would serve you well to do so. You are limited to telphoto only starting at 100mm,. but this sacrifice improves on overall image quality.

[John57]

I have this lens, using it with a 10D and am really pleased with it. I agree with Mattchases comments.

It's a bit on the heavy side but all big 'L' zooms are. The push pull can be a pain at times and tends to stick a bit on my copy when at 350mm. The previous comments re it's sharpness are spot on - yes it's not quite as sharp as some other 'L' zooms but it IS a sharp lens and I have had very good results. If you want the focal range it offers it will give you good results.

I have compared it with a Tamron 28-300XR and a Canon 28-200 and there is just no comparison in the image quality - having said that there shouldn't be really as it costs over four times as much!

Some people slate this lens - most of those people seem never to have actually owned/used it. Those that have it seem to love it. I am definitely one of those.

[deztoys]

I have been using this lens for a few months now and truely love the versatility. I considered the 100-400, but just don't like losing the low end of the zoom. I've used the 35-100 too many times to ever voluntarily give it up. As for weight and "klunkiness", I have adapted to the idea of the weight and have learned how to use the push/pull zoom pretty well.

One draw back is the optic size compared to the others. it uses a 72mm filter/front optic, so it is not consistent with many of the other L series. This was a pain at first, since most my other lenses are L series as well. But I've learned that I really haven't missed the use of polarizers or such with this lens so far.

Here are a couple pics from a event I used this lens at.

http://www.pbase.com/snj/camp_pendleton_mud_run

Bottom line. I do recommmend this lens for its versatility and sharpness, but can not vouch for it in comparison to the 100-400. You may want to think about how many times you will use the 35-100 end of the lens.

Scott

[TimNYC]

For those of you who actually have used/own this lens I thank you for what sounds like very honest assessments of the lens. Now all I have to decide upon is the 35-350 or 100-400. Thanks!

[hodad66]

Hey Tim I just got this lens & a 10D a couple of weeks ago. Check my galleries! It is heavy but this rig, a toploader bag & a monopod & I'm ready to go.

[John57]

Tim, I forgot to say in my reply that I have the 100-400 as well as the 35-350.... the 100-400 is sharper at the long end but you won't notice any difference at 100mm.

It's biggger than the 35-350 and slightly heavier - same kind of 'feel' though. For what it's worth the 35-350 has a much better and smaller lens hood too.

If I had to choose between the two I would take the 35-350 for the extra flexibility. That of course is based on the type of photos I take which seem to cover all of the 35-350 range. Have a good think and rent/try both if possible. If you are going to spend most of your time at 300-400 then the 100-400 will be better. I don't regret buying either lens, but I do find I use them for very different things.

Also....remember the 1.6x if you have a D30/60/10D - the 100-400 then starts at 160.... but ends at 640mm with IS.

[TimNYC]

John, many thanks again!
hodad, I really enjoyed your gallery. I especially like your "Scenes" gallery and the moon manipulations, impressive. You make a strong case for the 35-350.

[pwagner]

The 100-400L has a 77mm front filter size; that is useful if you have other L's such as the 17-40, 24-70, 28-70, or 70-200 f/2.8.

The 100-400L has the image stabilizer feature. At 200mm and up you are going to want IS for handheld and even monopod operation. IS alone is the reason I bought the 100-400L and ruled out the 35-350L and the 400 f/5.6L.

If you don't demand IS, then the Sigma 50-500 would be worth a look. It is bigger and heavier than the 35-350L and 100-400L, but it is reported to have good optics (and a price tag 3/5 of either of the L's).

My other lens is the 28-135 IS; I find that I don't switch too often between the two. For the shooting I do, I can usually stick with one lens or the other most of the time. Are you trying to have a camera with one and only one lens?

[charr5]

pwagner,
That would be my concern. I recently bought the 28-135 IS and I'm wondering if the 35-300L would be a duplicate of that lens ( in the use it would get).
I'd hate to stop using my 28-135 because the other lens has more range.
What do you think?

[Longwatcher]

One thing that has not been mentioned yet.
You can put the extenders on the 100-400, but you can not on the 35-350.

I myself have been cosidering the 35-300 (just for the fun of it) so I only have to travel with two lenses (16-35 and 35-350), but I occasionally like the extra range of the 100-400 with the 1.4x or 2x extenders*.

Something to consider.

*=trivia: I recently was out on some mountains in New Mexico and found I could actually get decent pictures from having both extenders on at the same time if there is tons of light and almost no haze. At least with the 70-200/2.8L IS I had with me.

[jim monroe]

Mentioned in the previous post was the use of multiple extenders. For some more information on this and some really good comparison shots using no extender, one extender and multiple extenders on I think it was the 400mm/5.6 L lens see "multiple extenders on telephoto lens" by belmondo, which was a thread a couple of weeks ago.

[pwagner]

Charr5 wrote:
>>>
I recently bought the 28-135 IS and I'm wondering if the 35-300L [350] would be a duplicate of that lens ( in the use it would get).
I'd hate to stop using my 28-135 because the other lens has more range.

[pwagner]

>>>
but I occasionally like the extra range of the 100-400 with the 1.4x or 2x extenders*.

[Jesper]

Link to more reviews of this lens: http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=15&sort=7&thecat=27

[CyberDyneSystems]

pwagner wrote:

Another thought would be to get the 300mm IS in the (affordable) f/4 aperature. Given that you have the 28-135 already, the 300mm f/4 might be a good complement. It is a bit lighter and a bit faster and a bit less costly than the 35-350 or the 100-400.

The 300mm f/4 IS is a huge bargain! Compare it's price to the 300mm f/2.8 and that stop is pretty costly! I am seriously considering this lens as my next prime.. I am using a 500mm f4.5 Sigma (an unbelievably good lens for the price) and the f/4.5 has not been a hindrance to my nature shooting at all.. thus a 300mm f/4 should be mor ethan enough aperture. The f/2.8 would be nice for sports and other applications... but since I allready have a 500mm I won't be looking at wanting f/2.8 on a 300mm specifically so I can add teleconverters. (which is how a lot of people use there 300mm f/2.8s)