Gunzorro wrote:
I know it's probably not in the same league, but as anyone done a head-to-head with this lens against the smaller/lighter Nikon version 28-300?
Compared to the 28-300 on my 1Ds3 and the counterpart on a D3S, not in the same league is an understatement. But again, the Nikon is much lighter and cheaper, so something had to give...
I'm going to sell my 28-300L to help pay for a 300/2.8L IS that I recently acquired. I often shoot with two bodies and two lenses (24-105/4L IS and 70-200/2.8L IS II), and so I don't have to swap lenses so often, maybe add a TC here or there.
RobertLynn wrote:
I think Trenchmonkey had one.
Hey, Robert...my ears were burnin'
I did but preferred the original uber zoom...the 35-350L. That and the 135 f2L are about
the only lenses I truly miss from my Canon years. The 35-350 was tack sharp thru the range,
great colors/contrast and no distortion. I'd kill for something along those lines on the darkside.
Hell, throw the 17-40 in the bag and you're ready for just about anything...in decent light.
trenchmonkey wrote:
Hey, Robert...my ears were burnin'
I did but preferred the original uber zoom...the 35-350L. That and the 135 f2L are about
the only lenses I truly miss from my Canon years. The 35-350 was tack sharp thru the range,
great colors/contrast and no distortion. I'd kill for something along those lines on the darkside.
Hell, throw the 17-40 in the bag and you're ready for just about anything...in decent light.
Glad you're over here posting! It's because of you that I've considered shooting equestrian *did I spell that right!* events.
After I posted, I thought it may have been the 35-350 that you had but here, it was both!
I had the opportunity to use a 28-300L for just under two weeks. Amazing lens! Not the sharpest throughout the range, but certainly sharp at f/8. It is heavy (part of the reason I got rid of my 70-200/2.8 IS), but such a useful range for full frame. I compared it to the older EF 28-200, and it was better (as expected). The surprise was the IQ on the 28-200 wasn't bad, but it was a bit slow on AF focus and build quality was very cheap. The 28-300L is on my dream list.
Jim -- Oh, I wish I could help you out there! I know that if you've owned it, it's going to be in great shape.
Trenchmonkey -- Thanks for the tip. I'll keep my eyes out for the 35-300L. How was the focusing speed? Pretty good, with the types of subjects you take?
Well, first I don't think that they made a 35-350 in 2005, since the 28-300 was introduced in 2004. Something not adding up.
I have found the IS on the 28-300 quite indispensable, because for all intents and purposes it's an f8 lens, which puts it into the "only when it's sunny" category and for anything else you're desperate for the IS. But the 35-350 is still a very versatile and useful lens.
I'll check the date code when I get it. I know the 28-300 was unveiled in 2004, and the 35-350 was discontinued. Was there a production/inventory overlap? I don't know. Some reviews have given higher marks to the 35-350 for lack of distortion, better resolution and less light fall-off. We'll see.
When I asked the seller to check the date code for me, he updated this ebay auction to read: UP FOR AUCTION IS MY CANON 35-350 "L'' ZOOM WITH A 72MM LENS. #27979 DATE CODE UT0105 THAT I PURCHASED IN APRIL OF THIS YEAR AND IT HAS BEEN A WORK HORSE FOR ME. IT HAS SOME SMALL PAINT CHIPS /SCUFFS AROUND THE TRIPOD COLLAR (NOT SHOWN), THE PUSH PULL IS SMOOTH AND CLEAN, THE LENS IS SCRATCH FREE, NO FUNGUS, OR SMUDGES IT ALSO HAS A UV/CPL FILTER AND BOTH END CAPS. I NEED THE ' IS' SYSTEM OR COMPARABLE . THIS IS A AS IS NO RETURN OR WARRANTY PRODUCT BUT YOU WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED AND IT STILL TAKES GREAT SHOTS. I DO NOT HAVE THE ORIGINAL BOX.
After acquiring the 35-350L, it did nothing to satisfy my desire to get the 28-300L!
The 35-350L has become one of my favorite lenses. It has beautiful rendering and color. But it lacks two important features: IS and 28mm.
Today I bought one off craigslist from a nice local photographer. Excellent condition at a very good price. I've only shot a few things today in the gloom of an approaching storm, but it was enough to know the lens functions and to get a feel for its range. I'm won't be sure until I do a head-to-head, but the 35-350L may have slightly better IQ and sharpness, but if so, the range and IS make the 28-300L a winner.
Here are a few quick grabs from the area near where we did the deal.
These first two shots show the range, one at 28, the other at 300.
I got some sun (sorry my European friends!), and was able to get some better lighting and contrast.
I'm impressed! The center frame area makes this lens one of my sharpest. No kidding. The outer areas are a bit soft, but that's not what this lens is about. And the IS is just amazing -- some great shots in the overcast or low ISO over the last couple days. Some at 1/20-1/40 sec -- I'm blown away.
Here are a few at 300mm, with accompanying detail enlargement. All hand held with 1Ds2.
I am thinking something like 28-300 or 35-350 plus a light alt WA prime (I am thinking Oly 18/3.5 or 21/2), would be a good combination for travel and hiking. On FF camera at least.
I'm happy to report that Jim's (jcolwell) 28-300 will be mine soon and I will be keeping my 35-350 also. The pair of them will be used for my R/C event photography so although it will take a while I'll be able to find out their strengths & weaknesses on the bodies I own once the flying season starts up in my area. I also own a Tamron 18-270 which I brought on vacation (& 7D) not expecting to do anything other than simple vacation photos. As soon as we arrived in the hotel for check in I saw an Air Show poster so I did what I could with what I had & although not perfect I think I did OK. I'll work on the CR2's when I get home & I think most who will view them will be happy with the finished product.
This is the first trip here that I haven't brought a 1 series body but I haven't brought long lenses so I guess I'd still have had the wrong gear this time unless I'd known about the show earlier. Next year I'll be well equipped.
Edited to add that I used every bit of the 18-270's FL but only because the spectators were allowed right beside the runway. Even wider would have been handy for some shots.
Cicopo -- Congrats on your purchase. Sounds great. Looking forward to your comparison results.
I'm afraid that I'll probably have to sell my 35-350 to help pay for the 28-300. I'm bummed, but I can't see why I would need both lenses. But that is one I'd like to keep for the range and warmth it gives its subjects.
***********
BTW -- The oak trees on the hilltop are a couple miles away -- that's why I say it's so sharp.
I had intended to watch for one this spring but when I read a thread about MA'ing lenses Jim mentioned he was going to sell his 28-300 so I sent a PM and made the deal. Needless to say his reputation had a lot to do with it.
Glad you're over here posting! It's because of you that I've considered shooting equestrian *did I spell that right!* events.
