Canon 35-350 L lens

[Spatch]

Hi,

I am looking for an L series lens to complement my 17-40 L. I want to ensure that I overlap (or basically get very close) the focal lengths so I have no dead areas between them. I have done a search on the forum and have not found a great deal of info, but what are your opinions on the 35-350 L lens. It fits exactly what I am after but would like any feedback before parting with loads of money.

Cheers
Mark.

[Haifidelity]

I've never used it, but FM's User Reviews are a good place to start when gauging lens performance (link to the 35-350L bleow):

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=15&sort=7&thecat=27

From all indications, the optical quality is very good, but there are some issues you should take into account (Push/Pull Design, Weight and 'slow' maximum apertures).

At that same price point, i would personally rather have the 70-200 f/2.8L IS (I have the non-IS version).

[Cadwell]

The 35-350mm L zoom is not the most highly regarded lens out there. Many people consider it to be "soft". It is not rated highly here http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm where it scores 3.23 out of a possible 5 and is rated as merely "average" perhaps not what you would expect from an "L".

Of course... Canon tried to do something really difficult with this lens and the range of focal lengths it covers is quite startling... so given what it is trying to do, it would seem to perform remarkably well.

You should also be aware that the lens has been replaced in the Canon lineup by the new 28-300mm L IS.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Forget that lens.. For less money look to the 100-400IS... and fill between 40mm and 100mm with an 85mm f/1.8 or maybe a 50mm.

Or get the 70-200mm any of them.. and then look for a long telephoto with a 300mm f/4 or better yet a 400mm f/5.6

[SnJPhoto]

Mark -
You will find several of these coming available as canon brings out the 28-300. They are used heavily for areas where you don't have either the time to change lenses or desire to carry a pre rigged extra body. I really like the lens as an all purpose lens for shootinr running sports and slower activities. it has gotten a bad rap from some folks. But the way I see it, if it works for you, why care what others say. Personally, I have this lens and find it a great companion for the areas mentioned. If its available, try it out and maybe rent one for a day. Then jump on one of the "good deal" that will be coming about shortly. the one draw back I will state is the filter size is not standard with the other L series optics. So you end up with having to buy extra filters if you use them for any special purpose.

I also have the 100-400, but find it a bit too much for action I shoot. it is a great lens, with a purpose. I deal alot with action that is coming towards me, usually to within a few feet, so the 35mm end of the lens is a great help.

Scott

[Jim_T]

I've read the specs on the 35-350.. I can't comment on the optical quality, but one thing that you might be concerned with is the size and weight.. (Around 3 pounds). You may find it awkward under certain conditions..

I have th e100-400L, but I also have the much smaller and lighter Canon 100-300 which I use from time to time when the big lens would be too cumbersome.

[hodad66]

I enjoy mine totally, very handy but heavy... shots on PBase

[Spatch]

Thanks guys for the input. Still not sure if I should go for it or not. As suggested I may try to rent one for a while (although I doubt I will be able to get this locally).

I think I could live with the weight and also the push-pull zoom but I am a little concerned with the softness some poeple have mentioned. Is this really an issue that is noticeable (I have a 10D and digital cameras have the low pass filter which tends to soften images anyway meaning you normally have to sharpen them slightly in Photshop)??

Mark.

[John57]

I use the 35-350 with a 10d with no significant worries over softness. I have had some good results from it. Yes, it is not as sharp as a 70-200 2.8 but most zooms don't match that. It is miles better than any of the cheaper 'superzooms' and I think Canon has done pretty well with it. My issues with it are concern over it's weight and the fact I would like it to have IS which it doesn't have. It is actually lighter than the 70-200 2.8 and the 100-400 (both of which I have) but is still somewhat heavy. I have no issues over the image quality at all - you have to rememer it is covering 35-350 and is not say a 200mm prime.

I will probably sell mine soon and get the 28-300 IS (hopefully when it comes down in price a bit). I will not use it all the time but love the flexibility it can bring on the right occasion.... as stated by others - when I only want to take one lens or don't want to keep changing lenses.

[KennyG]

You have to consider the market this lens and the new 28-300L were designed for. It is really for newspaper PJ's who don't have the time to swap lenses on assigment. They shoot in mid range JPG and are not too worried about the niceties of sharp images or accurate focus, because their shots will end up, in the main, as fuzzy B&W pictures in a newspaper.

For that purpose both lenses are excellent. However, you can't compare them with other Canon L zooms where there is a more limited range of zoom and that were designed for sports, wildlife, magazine, etc photographers, where image quality does count.

I always pick lenses (and cameras for that matter) by starting at the end result required and working back. For example, if the requirement is purely for the web at a maximum of 800x600 and you will shoot in large JPG but won't ever print above 5x6, then maybe the 35-350 will pass muster.... maybe.

I played around with one for a while and I didn't like the CA at 35 or the softness throughout the range getting worse above 300. It didn't fit my criteria for what I needed from a lens. YMMV

[Spatch]

John 57,

I don't suppose you could post a couple of pictures taken with both the 35-350 and the 70-200 of the same subject, just so I can see this difference in sharpness. I know that this may not be particularly representitive but it seems a good place to start.

Thanks
Mark.

[CyberDyneSystems]

It's heavier than the 100-400mm... but not by much.. :wink: