Is anybody still using the old EF 35-350mm f3.5-5.6L? I remember it being a fairly popular lens in its day, but it kind of faded from the scene after the 100-400L IS came along.
I'm still using one. Not so much now that I've bought a 28-300 L IS but I am still using it for R/C events. As far as I'm concerned it's a pretty good lens, or at least my copy is. It AF's noticably faster on my 1 series bodies than my 7D, and having recently bought a slightly used 1D4 I think the 7D will be sold in the fall. I'll be shooting an event in 10 days & I'll be comparing the 2 lenses on the 1D4. for the last 3 summers it's spent a lot of time on my 1Ds2 & been a real workhorse getting excellent results.
Molson -- Do a search of the Canon forum, as we had a very interesting discussion with lots of photos just a few months back (maybe six?). I owned the 35-350L at that time. I was so impressed, that I bought the 28-300L. I didn't need the overlap, so I sold the 35-350. The two things I needed were the 28mm and the IS. But I think the color was more to my liking (slightly warmer and most inviting) and the sharpness as good or even a touch better -- but not enough to matter. The 28-300 is awesome, but even used, it is double the price of the 35-350! The lens is far better than the average of the reviews and comments it has generated.
Sorry! I just went looking, and the link seems to be disappeared! Good luck.
Well. . . I can't argue against the 28-300L IS, except price. For $900+, you can get 35-350. I got a smoking deal on the used 28-300 for $1700. Definitely one of my favorite lenses.
Either lens coupled with the 16-35L II gives an amazing range of possibilities.
I can relate to that but besides the price difference it's also noticeably heavier. Both are very versatile & serve my needs better than anything else out there. Had there been something comparable in a Nikon mount I think I'd have bought a D800 instead of the 1D4 this spring.
Cicopo wrote:
I can relate to that but besides the price difference it's also noticeably heavier. Both are very versatile & serve my needs better than anything else out there. Had there been something comparable in a Nikon mount I think I'd have bought a D800 instead of the 1D4 this spring.
+1 on the weight difference. As I was mostly using my 28-300L outdoors and wasn't using the wide end of it much, I actually bought a 35-350L to replace my 28-300L, netting a huge price difference. And yes, the 35-350L is smaller and lighter, more than I expected. So far I find the IQ comparable, and I don't miss the IS or the wide end- but that really comes down to how you plan to use the lens.
I had 35-350L and I liked it. The only problems with it was some softness at 350mm wide open, and a major barrel distortion at 35mm. Otherwise its IQ was fine, the lens was relatively light and small when fully collapsed. AF response was also decent.
For the money, I'd say it is a great lens if you'd use it sufficiently to justify its purchase. Unfortunately I wasn't, so it had to go.
PetKal wrote:
I had 35-350L and I liked it. The only problems with it was some softness at 350mm wide open, and a major barrel distortion at 35mm. Otherwise its IQ was fine, the lens was relatively light and small when fully collapsed. AF response was also decent.
For the money, I'd say it is a great lens if you'd use it sufficiently to justify its purchase. Unfortunately I wasn't, so it had to go.
I would agree with your softness comment at 350mm. However, if I stop-down to around f/7.1, it seems to clean it up a good amount. But- 350mm at f/7.1 without IS means I use it outdoors mostly, as would most I would guess.
