May I have your opinion - Canon EF 35-350mm f/3.5-5.6L USM

[lensmen]

Anyone used this lens and how is it with digi cams ?

like to replace my 75-300 USM with this if possible, more for the optical quality....

[wolf]

Here (http://www.photographyreview.com/35mm,Zoom/Canon/PRD_83419_3128crx.aspx) are 25 reviews you can have a look at.

Hope this helps.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Avoid it..

look at 100-400mm instead.

IMHO

[lensmen]

Here (http://www.photographyreview.com/35mm,Zoom/Canon/PRD_83419_3128crx.aspx) are 25 reviews you can have a look at.

Hope this helps.

I had read the reviews earlier, but still am not really convicened about the feedback, furthermore, most of the reviewers are film users....

[lensmen]

Other than the IS portion, why would you say this ?

Avoid it..

look at 100-400mm instead.

IMHO

[dhbailey]

Isn't there some rule-of-thumb that lenses with more than a 5x zoom won't be great at either extreme? I seem to remember some such thing but can't for the life of me remember where I read it. The 35-350 is a 10x zoom and so would exhibit problems at the extremes (or be perfect at one end and much less clear at the other end).

Can somebody else help out with this -- am I remember incorrectly?

[Andy_T]

Isn't there some rule-of-thumb that lenses with more than a 5x zoom won't be great at either extreme?

DH,

You're correct.

A good 10x zoom is very difficult to build.

However, if you do a very good job (as Canon normally does with its L lenses), you get half decent image quality.

Still, according to what I have heard so far (I don't have the lens), the image quality can not be compared to the 100-400 L IS, which is available at a comparable price.

So normally the people who buy this lens (and its newer cousin, the 28-300 L) are photojournalists who don't have time to switch lenses and maybe only want pictures to print in newspapers.

Best regards,
Andy

[SnJPhoto]

It seems this question comes up every few months, and I am always amazed at the folks that have such dislike of it. I have used this lens for awhiile, as well as a host of others to include the 100-400. I really like the freedom of the overall range of this lens, but wish it had IS. Hence, I will buy the 28-300 sometime. As for image quality, yep....this is not THE best L glass Canon has produced, but it is a damned nice piece of glass. If you can live with lens changes, you may want to check out some of the other lenses to cover the equivalent range.

So, would I buy it again? Yes, at a discounted price, otherwise I would save up for the 28-300. The 35-350s can be had for around $800 now, which is attractive as compared to a couple other lens combos to fill the range.

Scott

[CyberDyneSystems]

Other than the IS portion, why would you say this ?

Avoid it..

look at 100-400mm instead.

IMHO

The 100-400mm is;
1: Longer (focal length)
2: Sharper
3: Better image contrast
4: Better image color
5: Lighter
6: Easier to use (faster to use)
7: Can be fitted with Teleconverters (the 35-350 can't)
8: Was less expensive compared to the 35-350mm new.. but I assume you are looking at used?
9: Did I mention IS :wink:
10: Less Chromatic Aberation.

Essentially.. it (the 100-400mm IS) beats the 35-350mm in every respect except for the wide end of the zoom range. To me having more zoom range at the sacrifice of quality defeats the purpose of a camera where I can switch lenses.

[lensmen]

goodness, with such contrast of viewpoint. I think I should forget about the 35-350L unless a really good and afforable copy pops up...

[robertwgross]

If you really, really, really need that wide of a zoom range, then I guess 35-350 is the way to go. However, you may find that a zoom range that wide is a convenience, but at the cost of sharpness anywhere.

Personally, if I could get one of those for super cheap, then I would likely try it, because I value that wide range of zoom and use one other with a wide range.

However, as you get into this more and more, the more you're likely to swing over to something slightly more specialized in the zoom range, namely, the 100-400. I carry shorter zoom lenses with me, but the 100-400 is used a lot.

---Bob Gross---

[pcasciola]

It's really a matter of how much quality are you willing to sacrifice for convenience? From what I've seen in online reviews and photos others have posted, the 35-350L will be better than your 75-300mm, but not as good as the 100-400L, which you could pair up with the 28-75mm Tamron XR Di to get more coverage with better performance from 28mm to 400mm, for only about $200 more than the 35-350L, maybe even less. The 35-350L would give you a good one size fits all solution, but you will be sacrificing a little image quality for the convenience of being able to carry around one lens.

[robertwgross]

For some types of photography, having to switch lenses "mid-stream" is very objectionable, so the wide range zoom is convenient. For most types of photography, however, it isn't such a big deal to switch lenses.

---Bob Gross---

[SnJPhoto]

Lensmen -

Ya - for some reason the 35-350L brings on peoples emotions into the discussion. Before you buy anything, you may want to rent it and see how it works for you. Since you are shooting with the DRebel, you may find that some of the performance flaws identified in some lenses aren't really noticed in your rig, or perhaps even amplified. Pay attention to things besides the normal image characteristics (albeit they are most important). Things like motor speeds and build quality are sometimes overlooked when folks talk about buying glass.

You may also want to checkout a 28-135 IS and 100-400L combo to cover the range. The 28-135 has gotten some good reviews and as was stated earlier the 100-400 L is a solid performer.

Cheers


Scott

[Mthorpe_Davies]

Why not look at the new 28-300 this has IS and from what I have read it's as good as the 100-400 if not slightly better.

[Jesper]

Here are more reviews of the 35-350: http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=15&sort=7&thecat=27

[Andy_T]

Why not look at the new 28-300 this has IS and from what I have read it's as good as the 100-400 if not slightly better.

Downside here would be the price ... it'S about $ 2200 at B+H.

Best regards,
Andy

[CyberDyneSystems]

Belmondo has this lens.. (28-300mmL IS )

If I may attempt to speek for him.. I recall distinctly that he loves the range.. but he felt it was NOT the optic equal of the 100-400mm L IS... despite being nearly double the cost of the 100-400mm

[karusel]

I'd like to add, that I think even my 100-400L is not razorblade sharp, also, it's slow. One nice day I'll sell it and buy the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8. This is practically the only zoom alternative. But I'd really really stay away from 35-350L. It's meant for a specific purpose (like, safari - plenty of light, or going somewhere where you cannot afford dragging a whole backpack of primes along with you, instead you just take one single lens), and I'd say the majority don't need this. In situations like that the image quality doesn't really need to be superb, good is good enough.