Wow! I got the lens. This a big lens (big range field of view, and large size) and a big topic!
There was an error in the seller's information -- the lens is UI version (1994), not UT as he'd stated (2005, after production ended in 2003-2004). Still, the glass is perfect, the functions are good, and only a few minor nicks in the paint. My sample may have a slight front focus issue, noticable in some of the wide open shots I've taken. I'll keep checking, and may get it adjusted, but it isn't a picture-killer.
It is amazing how much 10X zoom covers! We are pretty used to P&S with super-zoom range, and some of the cheaper lenses offering super-zoom. But it is rare, even on an out-of-date behemoth, to have "L" quality in this range. Granted, this isn't the "L" quality of a the world class 135/2L prime, or even the best contemporary "L" zoom designs. But there should be no mistake when it comes to overall IQ, this is an "L" lens.
For examples I'll start with the obvious (and most boring) -- the 10X range, with shots at 35mm and 350mm. All samples are hand held on 1Ds2, so exact sharpness is not the priority here, but with faster shutter speed, the images hold up pretty well.
Yes, f/3.5-5.6 is slow. It's certainly not f/1.2! And the lack of IS is noticeable and would be a huge asset. But, as I mentioned somewhere, I've had very little IS influence in my collection. So, at least for the time being (until I can fund a 28-300L), this will do.
The most remarkable quality of this lens is the wonderful color. It seems even more rich than I'm used to in "L" glass. Sharpness is not as high as some of those we are used with Zeiss and "L" micro-contrast and intimate details. Even so, the lack of micro-contrast creates a slightly posterized effect in small tonal changes -- very attractive in its way -- not a fuzzy OOF.
The second remarkable and pleasing quality is the OOF bokeh areas, even at f/8 at longer focal lengths. Overall, the impression is is one of medium format imaging, which I know many of us strive (vainly, for the most part ) to attain with DSRL performance.
Yes, I took a calculated risk after reading so much tripe about this lens. I must have found everyting available on the web with regard to artcles, formal reviews and user reviews and as many images as I could find. I "heard" a lot about softness, lack of contrast, blah, blah, blah. A few people did say positive things and post images to back them up, but they seemed largely ignored by others with a certain mindset.
It's all working out to the good for me!
Having used the updated 28-300L, I knew there was a good possibility of the previous one being good too. I think it was PetKal who commented that he'd used the 35-350L and it was very sharp for him -- better than the 28-300L copy he tried. So, that was encouraging, finding an experienced person without an ax to grind or dog in the race.
Anyhow, I had more good results today putting it on the 1D2. I have to say that the focus seemed absolutely spot-on, calming my concerns about possible front focus -- more testing required with the 1Ds2. And, . . . if anything, the color seems even better with the 1D2! I'm always amazed how good the images are coming off this 8MP camera -- so much that I'm expecting another copy tomorrow! I couldn't resist a auction that looked like it might be in pristine condition. You can judge for yourself in the following images, whether the 1D2 is as impressive as it seems to me (see the later set below).
Here are a few more from Saturday, returning from the shooting range above Ojai.
This first one is a grab shot, intended to answer the many critics who wonder why it would be worthwhile to own a lens with such extensive range. Granted, the lens has PJ written all over it, but I am certain that isn't its only major application. This was shot with 1Ds2 out the window of my moving car, following a stoplight. I got off four shots without looking in the viewfinder, just "drive-by style" propped on the window frame.
Stan -- Thanks for your input. I appreciate your experience. So, the only thing I'm lacking, other than 28mm (minus the long end) is IS? You feel the overall color and IQ is superior in the 35-350 (or just my copy?).
In the past, I've used lenses like the EF 28-200 USM (still have, but probably going to sell), EF 28-105 USM II (w/ macro close-up) and EF 28-135 IS, and know how poor the performance can be on the edges and wide open -- all these lenses are mediocre. This 35-350 lens has none of those faults, and substantially improves it sharpness by closing down a stop or two -- moving it into an impressive IQ range, IMO. Those other lenses would get up to an "acceptable" range when closed down to f/8-11, but never anything that could be called stand-out performance.
I do like the 28 wide end for FF, but I'm sure I could get by with 35 if the IQ is as good or better. I've yet to put the 16-35 on one FF body and this 35-350 on another FF body to see what 16-350L looks like! It should be interesting.
I occasionally do aerial photography from helicopters, and found a major IQ difference between my 24-70L and the 28-105 at f/5.6-8, leading me to get rid of the 28-105. The 28-300L (or 35-350L) could be a tremendous asset in that type of work. No one has really mentioned that application for these super-zooms, which is kind of surprising. It seems they would be in demand for such work, along with shorter ones like 24-105L.
Besides being versatile range wise it's also very capable at action when on the right body. These samples (the full frame & then a 100% crop) show what it can do.
This one is from an event in the spring & the plane was making a test flight to see if the low ceiling had lifted enough to start the event. The sky was dull & the light poor but it still nailed focus on the pass which I was told was at around 100 MPH.
Gunzorro wrote:
Stan -- Thanks for your input. I appreciate your experience. So, the only thing I'm lacking, other than 28mm (minus the long end) is IS? You feel the overall color and IQ is superior in the 35-350 (or just my copy?).
I haven't shot with your copy, and the one copy that I used seemed to have nicer color than my 28-300 (both on the 1Ds at that time). But from the photos it seems like the "look" of the 35-350 is better. I valued the IS a lot, as well as the wide end. So I am happy with my choice
Psychic1 -- Thanks so much for responding and posting some fine examples.
Cicopo -- Some terrific action shots showing that incredible crop.
Stan -- Don't worry about hijacking the thread. The 28-300 is the elephant in the room, and we've already referenced it several times. Those are really fine images, and show that lens off well. I'm pretty sure there is one in my future, when I can afford it. Until then, I'll enjoy this 35-350 and learn as much as I can about its performance.
Stan that Giraffe shot is GREAT. All of your examples are inspiring & I'm already watching for a 28-300 at a fair price, but I'm also watching for a second 35-350.
) to attain with DSRL performance.
