EF 35-350mm f/3.5-5.6L

[TiggerBear]

Is this lens any good? Just seems to me that it covers such a wide focal length, that everyone should have one.:confused:

[gramps]

Here are some reviews for you..........
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=15&sort=7&cat=27&page=2

[TiggerBear]

Thanks for that....seems most people like it, just off to compare with the 28 -300.

Cheers

[Hellashot]

Most people can't shell out $1500 for a lens.

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Eh, small apeture plus hyper zooms never have the best quality. To top it all off it doesn't even have IS. it is a nice range though! I've actually seen one in action. I saw a parent at a lacrosse game using it with a 20D. It was pretty darn tiny! I thought it was a lot bigger.

I don't own one, nore have I used one though so, I'm probably not the best source.:lol:

[gasrocks]

TiggerBear - A good prime will beat a good zoom anyday. Looks like you need to discover the quality, speed, close focus of a good prime. Zooms are a conv. item. Some arre better than others, but not everyone wants a "one lens does it all" approach.

[Roy NN7DX]

35-350mmL? 25 reviews rating 4.6 of 5
Here (http://www.photographyreview.com/cat/lenses/35mm-zoom/canon/PRD_83419_3128crx.aspx)
I'd like to own one...
Newer 28-300L/IS replaces this in Canon's line up... I am sure it is even nicer with IS...
I think that "do everything" type lenses don't get any better than these two. There isn't much chance of hiding with these lenses and a good chance you will not miss an image...
Primes and 3x zooms may each have better images in their range but it's kinda' hard shooting at 35mm or 350mm while using a 135mm prime...

[Andy_T]

It is very hard to build a hyperzoom that gives consistent good image quality over the whole zoom range.

For that reason, the likes of the Sigma/Tamron 28-200 or 28-300 lenses normally do not have the same image quality as even 28-70 or 70-200 consumer zoom lenses.

The notable exceptions are the Canon 35-350, 28-300 and Sigma 50-500. Of course, they will not have the image quality and speed of the 24-70/2.8L or 70-200/2.8L, but their convenience makes up for that defect for the dedicated target group, press journalists (or birders on a budget for the 50-500:wink: ). Those need a large zoom range and maybe do not need to have the greatest sharpness if their target is newsprint.

Best regards,
Andy

[ScottE]

TiggerBear - A good prime will beat a good zoom anyday. Looks like you need to discover the quality, speed, close focus of a good prime. Zooms are a conv. item. Some arre better than others, but not everyone wants a "one lens does it all" approach.
Not always. I had a Sigma 400/5.6 APO before I got my Sigma 50-500. Comparing photos shot with both lenses, the 50-500 at 400 mm is slightly sharper. I did a comarative test and the lenses came out in this order:

Sigma 50-500
Sigma 400/5.6 APO
Canon 70-200/2.8 + 2x teleconverter

That was the older Sigma 400, not the more recent HSM or HSM Macro version that came out before it was discontinued. I understand the more recent versions were better than the old one.

I once considered the Canon 35-350, but the range of the Sigma 50-500 was better suited for the wildlife photography I wanted it for.

Scott

[Rob612]

I love my 35-350 :)