HI All,
I've an option on a second hand 35-350 Lens.
I've a 100-400 so am used to the push/pull zoom method. I shoot adventure sports and a bit of surfing and was thinking of this as a compromise for traveling, but am not sure how much of a compromise it will be.
I bought one as soon as it came out (15 years ago maybe??). For years it was my only lens and I got some great images out of it. Nothing bad to say about it other than the obvious low light limitations at the long end.
As a compromise for a single travelling lens it's great bit it does draw a bit of attention when you're out and about. That might be fine but might not be depending on where you are. If it's cheap enough, give it a go - I don't think you'll be disappointed.
I have one plus the 100-400 and use them at R/C fun fly events. Since getting the 35-350 the 100-400 sees a lot less use because the ability to go long or wide while on the flight line has made it my go to lens for that type of use. I may have got lucky too because mines pretty sharp for a superzoom. As mentioned it's a bit bulky & draws attention but it's very handy for the price.
I just noticed that the 35-350mm L is no longer listed on the Canon CPS Service Items List. I was tempted to send it in last year for a clean/calibration when I noticed this old workhorse was still on the list of lenses that Canon will service. Oh well, just an FYI.
One of my all time favorite Canon lenses 1D/1Ds/1D2/1D2n/1D2s/1D3 you get the idea.
If you've got handholding skills, the colors/contrast/range are most excellent. Made lots of $$ with my copies.
I just bought one of these (dated at the end of the production run, UT = 2005, hard to believe Canon wouldn't service!) and am anxious to try it out. It might arrive next week.
I've used the 28-300L on a loan from CPS and loved that lens. The IS really helps, but it's rare for me to have an IS lens, so not a deal-breaker. Perhaps someday I can move up to the 28-300L.
Right now my plan will be to take the 16-35L II and the 35-350L on assignments/outings where I want to travel light and cover a wide range, 16mm-350mm should handle elephants to hummingbirds! Also a great range for DSLR video with almost 22X.
Is anyone else still using one? What are your impressions?
I've read Trenchmonkey's review and that sounds good enough for me! But I'd like to hear more. I think it was PetKal that had kind words for this lens, possibly more favorable than the 28-300L.
It's the lens I use the most even though mine seems to have some kind of issue every now & then. Every so ofter it won't AF when extended to 350. Just pull it back a bit, acquire focus & then extend & all is well. I use it primarily on a 1Ds2 but have used it on a 7D recently while specifically testing which body it would AF fastest on while shooting an event. AF on the 7D / 35-350 wasn't as quick as with it on the 1Ds2 but it still did AF accurately. Other than that my copy is sharp enough to satisfy my needs & does everything else I can ask it too, but it does seem to perform slightly different on different bodies.
If you have some time to kill a lot of the flying photos in this album were shot with the above combinations OR with a 100-400 L on either body. You can check which was used by opening the "full details page" by clicking on it.
I owned one for quite some time and used it with a 10D, 40D, 1D II and 5D. As soon I moved to higher resolution cameras ... ie the 1Ds II and 5D II ... I saw that the 35-350 did not hold up. Contrast and color were still very good (the lens' strongest points), but overall definition was lacking. Edges weren't distinct. Fine detail was obscured.
The 28-300 is a significantly better lens if you're shooting high resolution, though it's considerably more expensive. In fact, it's the best of its kind. A great lens.
I eventually abandoned the "all-in-one" concept and decided on the 24-105 and 70-200 f/4 L IS as my extended range "lens." I sometimes use the 70-200 with a 1.4 extender to get that extra bit of reach. This lens combination yields much better results than either the 35-350 or 28-300. But I do miss that 28-300. It came in handy from time to time.
I have used the 28-300 extensively on both FF and 1/3 crop. I don't know how it and the 35-350 compare weight wise, but the 28-300 is a heavy chunk of iron. In spite of the weight I have climbed many a mountain with it and used it to photograph elk, landscape, wildflowers, waterfalls, moose and bear, many, many miles from the beaten path. I love it--but it is a heavy bugger, Knowing that, you will love the lens.
Dave
Steve -- I read a glowing review from you in earlier times (POTN? 2005?) on the 35-350. I see what you mean in your current remarks about how it performed when you got some higher rez sensors. I may have to upgrade to the 28-300, but this seems a good and affordable step. I can probably get my money back out of it is I choose. Supposed to come this next Friday, the 18th. I'll certainly post some pictures with the 1Ds2. It's funny how polarizing this lens (and the later 28-300) are for being popular or reviled. I see there was a lot of excitement in the early digital days with the D60, 10D, and 20D, but it fell out of favor about the time of the 1Ds2 and 5D. I'm not expecting miracles, but if it works as a event lens, or day trip lens, that would be fine.
Dave -- I'm a big guy, so a little extra weight will hardly be noticed. (Maybe even help me shed a few of my personal pounds!) I prefer light gear, especially if I will be lugging it for hours, but sometimes the all-in-one is the best solution (as you obviously know!) compared to a gear bag with several lenses that won't even get used!
Cicopo -- I'm hoping to use it along the same lines as you with the 1D2 and 1Ds2. If I get as good of sharpness as you, I'm sure I'll be happy with it. I've read mixed reports, but most say the 28-300 is a slightly sharper lens. I've shot the 28-300 for a limited time, and found its sharpness to be in the acceptable range even wide open, and quite decent at f/8-11 throughout the spectrum. Not 100L sharp, or even 24-70L sharp, but not EF 28-200/3.5-5.6 quality either (which I own and like despite its lack of super IQ, but it's a slow, balky USM version for events).
Great shots! That's a perfect venue for that lens! I assume that most of those shots on the ground showing the people, planes and prep were shot with the 35-350? If so, other than slightly over-exposed and over-saturated (did you have it set for 3-saturated?), the images look very nice. Overall clean edges with little or no fringing. Can you give me an idea of your exposure settings, and anything else like PP boosts in contrast?
Looks like the majority of ground shots were with my 7D with a Tamron 18-270 on it. To the best of my knowledge all of my cameras have the saturation set neutral & I rarely boost it in post. Some of them were shooting into the sun as it rose over the treed background. Re the 35-350 vs the 28-300 (a lens I still expect to buy) the 35-350 is more suited to my flight line use because I need the extra 50 mm's on the long end far more than needing it to be wider.
forrest5000 wrote:
HI All,
I've an option on a second hand 35-350 Lens.
I've a 100-400 so am used to the push/pull zoom method. I shoot adventure sports and a bit of surfing and was thinking of this as a compromise for traveling, but am not sure how much of a compromise it will be.
Any thoughts on it as a 2nd hand buy?
Thanks
John
I picked up a nice used one this past summer. The zoom range is nice, but I preferred my 100-400mm L plus a 24-105 L.
I resold the lens because it wasn't getting much use, I tended to use either the 24-105 or the 100-400 depending on the subject.
Here are two shots taken handheld on my front deck at the extreme zoom ranges.
scalesusa and gocolts -- Thanks so much for the photos (I'd love to see more, if you have any handy).
scalesusa -- That shows nice color in both images, and what a great range! I can understand if you have those two other lenses, why this 35-350 might not fit in. In my case, I have the 16-35 II, so the 35-350 or 28-300 will match up well and give me a great range. Your copy looks like it was fairly sharp, but hard to tell from two images.
gocolts -- Your 28-300 looks sharp and also has good color, considering the atmospheric conditions. The time I tried the 28-300, it worked very well and made me desire to use it more. I'll see if I can borrow again from CPS and do an A-B comparison against the 35-350 to see which looks better overall. If you have any others you can show, please feel free.
I recently tried a used 35-350 L on my 5D2 at a camera shop. While it has a great range the missing IS and the fact that the 28-300 L IS in direct comparison was just much sharper made me not buy it. If I would buy a super zoom it would be the later.
Gunzorro wrote:
scalesusa and gocolts -- Thanks so much for the photos (I'd love to see more, if you have any handy).
scalesusa -- That shows nice color in both images, and what a great range! I can understand if you have those two other lenses, why this 35-350 might not fit in. In my case, I have the 16-35 II, so the 35-350 or 28-300 will match up well and give me a great range. Your copy looks like it was fairly sharp, but hard to tell from two images.
gocolts -- Your 28-300 looks sharp and also has good color, considering the atmospheric conditions. The time I tried the 28-300, it worked very well and made me desire to use it more. I'll see if I can borrow again from CPS and do an A-B comparison against the 35-350 to see which looks better overall. If you have any others you can show, please feel free. ...Show more →
Thanks! I'll get some more posted for you when I have a chance to go through them. Many would argue 28mm isn't wide enough on a 1.6 crop camera like the 7D, but I've found it wide enough for a good majority of situations such as the ones I posted. In a few cases I stitched together 2-3 shots for a panorama, but I would have done that with a wider lens too.
) but it's not too bad and certainly not a deal breaker.
1D/1Ds/1D2/1D2n/1D2s/1D3 you get the idea. 