CANON ZOOM LENS EF 35-350MM ULTRASONIC

i used a 30mm lens at a kickboxing tournament last week and found it to be a bit short to capture the far corner of the ring when the lads were in. would this lens be better for me as it would seem to give me the closeness i need plus distance work. this would be coupled with a canon 1100d. is it compatible and would there be any drawbacks?

thanks

Are you talking about the L? If so, it will be a much bigger lens than your 30mm (Sigma?). There are a few in here who use the 35-350L and enjoy it. Some went from the 35-350 to the newer 28-300L and eventually went back to the 35-350L.

Drawbacks? Well it's an old, heavy lens. Not supported by Canon anymore I suspect. No IS for the long end. IQ may be less than the 28-300L and definitely less than the 70-300L. It should operate fine on your 1100D though.

If the 30mm was "a bit short" for the far corner of the ring, would something like the 24-105 be long enough for the far corner? It will likely be cheaper to buy used, much easier to find and at the same focal lengths will likely give better IQ than the older 35-350L.

See https://photography-on-the.net …ghlight=Canon+3​5-350+lens

35-350mm L is the oldest lens I own, will not get rid of it until it stops functioning, as it pretty much lives on my 7D. Heavy / likes light / built like a tank / fairly fast focus, takes a great picture in the right hands under the right conditions outdoors or indoors. Does it have faults, yes, but what lens doesn't, just a good piece of glass that can be had for $800. - $1000. bucks. My view point only

smythie wrote in post #16840333
Are you talking about the L? If so, it will be a much bigger lens than your 30mm (Sigma?). There are a few in here who use the 35-350L and enjoy it. Some went from the 35-350 to the newer 28-300L and eventually went back to the 35-350L.

Drawbacks? Well it's an old, heavy lens. Not supported by Canon anymore I suspect. No IS for the long end. IQ may be less than the 28-300L and definitely less than the 70-300L. It should operate fine on your 1100D though.

If the 30mm was "a bit short" for the far corner of the ring, would something like the 24-105 be long enough for the far corner? It will likely be cheaper to buy used, much easier to find and at the same focal lengths will likely give better IQ than the older 35-350L.

i have considered the 24-105 but as i'm still a newbie to this was hoping to find something to replace the lenses i have. so one for almost all occasions. this looked to fit the bill but was worried with it being 21 years old

TJays wrote in post #16840615
35-350mm L is the oldest lens I own, will not get rid of it until it stops functioning, as it pretty much lives on my 7D. Heavy / likes light / built like a tank / fairly fast focus, takes a great picture in the right hands under the right conditions outdoors or indoors. Does it have faults, yes, but what lens doesn't, just a good piece of glass that can be had for $800. - $1000. bucks. My view point only

thanks for the input

cicopo wrote in post #16840410
See https://photography-on-the.net …ghlight=Canon+3​5-350+lens

thank you for the link

How much light do you have available there? Unlike your 30mm, it might not be able to get good results in the dark.

jefzor wrote in post #16840980
How much light do you have available there? Unlike your 30mm, it might not be able to get good results in the dark.

the light varies at the events but, now having thought about it i'm better getting something else

tjs42 wrote in post #16840301
i used a 30mm lens at a kickboxing tournament last week and found it to be a bit short to capture the far corner of the ring when the lads were in. would this lens be better for me as it would seem to give me the closeness i need plus distance work. this would be coupled with a canon 1100d. is it compatible and would there be any drawbacks?

thanks

Ar you talking about the standard 20x20 ring? Wouldn't a low light alternative still be what you want? Would a 17-55 work for the full body wide angle (close distance) you were trying to get and provide you good low light shots? I would think that @ 55mm it would be enough to catch the opposite side for most of what you want. Sorry to interject unnecessarily but was wondering why the leap in length based on previous thread...

I have a 35-350L. With a full-frame camera, I think it'd be great. I used mine at a Disney On Ice event recently and it performed great, as I was able to get group/family shots as well as skater shots. But on a crop camera with limited ISO abilities, I'd consider your lighting first, as you might not be able to get the shutter speeds you need as the 35-350L is by no means a fast lens.

But if the lighting is ok, give it a shot. Find a good used one and you can always sell it on if it doesn't work out.

werds wrote in post #16841086
Ar you talking about the standard 20x20 ring? Wouldn't a low light alternative still be what you want? Would a 17-55 work for the full body wide angle (close distance) you were trying to get and provide you good low light shots? I would think that @ 55mm it would be enough to catch the opposite side for most of what you want. Sorry to interject unnecessarily but was wondering why the leap in length based on previous thread...

you are right but, at some events i wont be ring side so someone suggested this and thought i'd ask to see if it would suit my purposes. basicly i need the same low light capabilities with a bigger zoom range for closeness and distance. if possible one for all instead of having two different set ups at these events

I've also got one. After a few minutes...it "not that" heavy. You get used to it quickly (I did anyway).
So far (owned only a 6 or 8 weeks), very happy with its performance.

"Low" light must mean really low light...!? Picture from in my darkish living room look just fine at F6.

Mike

tjs42 wrote in post #16842968
you are right but, at some events i wont be ring side so someone suggested this and thought i'd ask to see if it would suit my purposes. basicly i need the same low light capabilities with a bigger zoom range for closeness and distance. if possible one for all instead of having two different set ups at these events

See that's a problem because the 35-350 isn't really a low light zoom and to get low light range like this you would need two different lenses, lots of money invested, and a fairly heavy lens.

If you are looking for a compromise I would go with two lenses. the 17-55 2.8 so you can have that mid range zoom and wide angle with decent low light ability. And then pick a second lens that either provides longer reach in a zoom package (but is not a low light performer) or pick up a long reach single focal length prime that does low light.

For me I chose the 17-55 2.8 as it fits my most used focal range. Picked up a 55-250mm stm because they are reasonably priced and the lens is SUPER light so switching for the times I need reach and light is not an issue is there. And then on ebay I had picked up a 135 2.8 for extremely cheap. It gives some reach with good low light but I am stuck at that focal range... but it makes it so that when there is lighting issues I can at least get some shots. Of course my route was a compromise because I did not have the budget to go long zoom with fast aperture AND I wasn't sure that due to circumstances I would be able to lug around a longer heavier zoom lens in the situations where it would be needed (and again the majority of my shots are within the wide to mid range zoom package)

The 35-350 though does seem to be a nice overall package of close up to long zoom but your compromise is going to be that you give up the low light performance. So if lighting is an issue in these tournaments you may not be happy with the results especially as you approach the longer end of the zoom range.

The answer would be a 6D & 35-350L combo. Not sure if you want to bother with a new camera body though.