Canon EF 35-350 L

I have Digital Rebel with 17-40 f/4.0 L USM lens. I was thinking of

buying also a 35-350 f/3.5-5.6 L USM as a everyday and travel lens. I

know it is heavy, costly and bulky, but I was interested in hearing

about the qualities of the lens. Any comments and or suggestions in

this regard? Thank you.

If you don't mind a big, heavy, bulky, expensive lens, It's probably just fine on a Drebel. The new 28-300L IS might be better, but it's another $1000 or so.

<p>

Personally I think it would be a very inconvenient "everyday" lens, but that's just me.

<p>

I'd go for a 28-135 IS. Maybe a 70-300DO IS if you need the long end and you have the cash. See my <a href="http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/10d300dlenses.html">article on lenses for the drebel</a>

Thanks Bob, I appreciate your respone and suggestions found in your article. Looks like 28-135 IS is a choice for everyday shooting, otherwise, I would be confined to carry the tripod all the time given the length and weight of 35-350 lens.

I rented a 35-350 several years ago. Built like an L lens, very disappointing optical performance. I guess it was designed before all the fancy computer design and aspherics came in, was probably good for its day, but a Tamron 28-300 3.5-6.3 outperformed it, if that's any indication.

I used the lens for about a year then sold it. It was heavy and bulky. I now use the 70-200(with 2x and 1.4 TC)That combo gives you low light capability when you need it and the long range outside when light is not an issue. BTW on my 10D the focus always seemed a little slow to find the mark. It's hard to beat the range of the lens, but look at a small camera bag and two lens that cover most of that range.

Bojan: I once saw a 35-350L. It was a monster of a lens! I can see it's advantages if are at a car race or air-show where you are in one place and use of a monopod. But carrying that 3-pound lens around for any length of time and hand-holding it would be uncomfortable at best.

 

I second Bob's 28-135IS suggestion. With the $1,000 you save, you can also add a 50 f/1.8, which makes a nice travel companion to the 28-135, and a 70-200L f/4 that would nicely round out your set of photo gear. Later on, if the 70-200 doesn't seem fast enough, add a 1.4 teleconverter.

That combination is my preferred option (17-40 & 35-350) � I agree with the comments about the 35-350 but to me they are only minor faults and niggles and are totally outweighed by all the major advantages.

 

I find this lens is perfect for me, while I agree it is heavy, I only tend to carry it with the 17-40; the combined weight is less than other options of covering this lens range. I have tried various 80/70-200 and did not get on with them, I found they were a tad too short, fitting and removing converters was a pain.

 

I am still using film and I find that I tend to use faster film as standard. Using this lens on a DREBEL would give you an awesome 56-560. I have found that using this lens that I have had to amend my habits and technique slightly; I find that I need to take a good monopod with me on longer shoots. The weight means that I tend to have to think about what and where I am shooting, shoulder bags tend to be left at home in preference to an easier to carry backpack.

 

If you read around the threads you will get a very mixed review of this lens. It is truly a lens of extremes, in that people either really love or hate it. IMHO I have found that this lens continues to consistently deliver excellent results. I must admit that I prefer the results it produces to those achieved with the 17-40. What I would suggest is trying to hire one for a period of time and see how you get on� The new IS version would be really nice, but is very serious money. The good news is that with the new IS version around the corner, 35-350's are starting to appear at very sensible prices � give some �heavy metal� a go, you may well like it!

I would wait for the 28-300/3.5-5.6 L IS. It is replacing the 35-350/3.5-5.6 L. The 35-350L had a list price of $2500, but sold for about $1400. Now, the 28-300L IS is being listed as $2500, too. I would expect that actual street price to be somewhere around the price of the 35-350L.

 

I have the 100-400/4.5-5.6 L IS. It's one of my favorite lenses. It's not too heavy, handling is great, zooming is fast, sharpness is good. I would expect the 28-300L IS to be similar.

 

I'm somewhat in the same situation as you. For a recent trip abroad, my primary lenses were the 17-40/4L, 28-135/3.5-5.6 IS, and 70-200/4L. I plan on getting the 28-300/3.5-5.6 L IS to replace the 28-135 IS and 70-200 L. I hated having to constantly switch between these two lenses. The construction quality on the 28-135 IS isn't great. The 70-200 often wasn't long enough. Plus, there were many occassions where I wish the 70-200 had IS. By replacing both the 28-135 IS and 70-200 L with the 28-300 L IS, it should solve several problems. First of all, it will save me from many lens changes. Secondly, I anticipate the 28-300 L IS to be at least as good in image quality as the 28-135 IS over the same focal range, but with much better construction quality. Thirdly, it will give me IS where the 70-200 didn't, and will give me more telephoto. The 28-300 L IS will be slightly heavier than the 28-135 IS and 70-200 L combined, but I think it will be well worth it. And I will still have my 17-40/4L for wide-angle shooting.

I'll second (third?!) the suggestion for a 28-135IS. Even though I have some good lenses that cover this range of focal lengths, I'd like to have one of those, as it would be *my* "ultimate" travel lens.

i have used this lens on several ocations. it has ok optics but not good. if the lens is heavly used oftenlt the zoom rong sticks and slides unevenly. generly that it not my perferd lens

<em>I would wait for the 28-300/3.5-5.6 L IS. It is replacing the 35-350/3.5-5.6 L. The 35-350L had a list price of $2500, but sold for about $1400. Now, the 28-300L IS is being listed as $2500, too. I would expect that actual street price to be somewhere around the price of the 35-350L. </em>

<p>

Wishful thinking I'm afraid. You're a few years behind the times.

<p>

Canon used to give a LIST price, then it would get discounted by maybe 40% when an item hit the street. Now they give a SELLING price, which is the actual price at which it will hit the sreet. In time it may drop a bit. The Canon price on the Drebel is $899.99 and it sells for...$899.99 at B&H. The Canon price in the 10D is $1499.99 and it sells for....$1499.99 at B&H. Those prices have been stable for over a year now.<p>

So the $2500 28-300/L IS is going to sell for.....$2500. Sorry.

I'll give a vote towards the long-zoom L lens. I've had my eye on the 35-350 for some time right now, and a LOT of research gave me the idea that there's a lot of people happy with it (who get over the weight). When Canon announced a wider (28mm) version that has newer L glass, and has IS.... I'm saving my pennies! Sure, the L glass on the 28-300 probably won't perform as good as some of the shorter length zooms, but that doesn't mean that it peforms poorly. I like trying to produce great shots, and versatile lenses definitely help that process. So what if it doesn't make the *sharpest*, most contrasty images, I've got a 10D, and Photoshop (for minor adjustments), and anyway, the largest percentage of people who see my photographs don't pay attention to absolute sharpness, MTF graphs, and other characteristics that us photo enthusiasts pay attention to. Most "laypersons" (photographically) just like punchy, beautiful images, and that's what all this photo stuff is about for me.

 

When I get the money, I'm getting that big a** lens!!

Big lenses sound nice, but quickly become a pain in the a** when you have to carry them around. The 35-350 isn't huge, but it's big enough to be inconvenient.

If I didn't have any other lenses and would have the money I'd seriously consider the 28-300 IS + monopod. However, since you have the 17-40/4 I'd probably go for the 70-200/2.8 IS + 1.4X TC. Cheaper, faster and probably better optics.

 

Happy shooting ,

Yakim.

I have the 35-350 and use it all the time. Its an excellent

all-rounder, with very good optical quality. It needs stopping

down at the long end for best results, but at the short end it is

excellent.

 

I have earned more money with this lens than with any other. It is

a good choice for travel, nature, landscape and people.

 

Yes there are sharper lenses, but the 35-350 is still capable of

reproduction quality images. Picture editors I send my Velvias to

have raved about the colour rendition and contrast of the images,

and consistently choose them for publication.

 

I regularly work in difficult conditions - rain, blowing snow and

sand, and being able to work happily without taking a lens off

and exposing the camera and lens innards to flying muck is a

HUGE bonus. I have worked on when colleagues with two or

three lens combinations have had to give up in frustration as

they cant easily swap lenses.

 

I guess its not everyone's ideal lens, but for what I do its great,

and the reality is that the lens is optically VERY capable and

deserves its L designation.

 

What more do you need! Well the 28-300 would be nice! I

always thought the addition of IS would be great. I will be buying

one of the new lenses for sure.

 

www.john-macpherson-photography.com

George Lepp, in the Magic Lantern book on Canon lenses, feels that the 35-350 is excellent. I have used one for many years now and love it. I will be replacing it with the new IS 28-300 when it comes out even though it weighs a half pound more. The 28-135 IS is a wonderful lens too if you don't need/want the extra reach.

I have an two DSLRs a 16-35 and a 35-350. Ive had it for about seven years now, and Ive never once been tempted to let it go for anything else thats come along within its range. Weight? nah there no argument, a 24-70+70-200 (or even a 70-200 IS) is about twice the weight and you dont have the crucial wide angle in that mix. If your using a 17-40 then you wont be interested in taking a set backwards to buy into the lower end lenses that are available.

Its a great lens Ive used it for EVERYTHING and Ive used it almost everywhere and I have loaned ot to other pros one of whome took it to Afghanistan and Iraq and came back with 30,000 images ten of which won him awards.

If I was you I would not wait and buy a 28-300 IS, because you will be able to get a second hand 35-350 for buttons if you search around very soon. It doesnt matter how bashed this lens get on the barrell its titanium components wont be built into the newer lenses of today because titanium is too expensive for them to produce.

One minor intrinsic problem with these lenses is physically the locking ring can become worn and loose with time but not loose enough to mess up a shot. This can easily be rectified by using a small strip of plastic (the sort of plastic that milk bottles are made from) which you insert under the ring when your walking around with the camera on your shoulder -not everyone can afford pro repairs and Ive seen a guy do this.

Wait and buy one next month when the new toys come out and youll have one of the very best lenses ever made for very cheap.

*** nah there no argument, a 24-70+70-200 (or even a 70-200 IS) is about twice the weight . ****

 

Huh??? Actually the respective weights of the combinations are 4.4 pounds and 5.6 pounds. Just a little short of "twice."

I was foremost a news reporter---then I became a photographer to have photos to back up my investigative reports. I've been shooting for the past 20 years now and have never thought of investing in "L" lenses until my D60 got stolen in Nov. of 2005. Last week I bought a 35-350mm L lens ($1,000) that I now use with a Canon 10D. I have a 17-40mm f4L which I use on my Canon-1D. These two lenses is more than enough for what I need.

While many people want to see the negative side of the 35-350mm lens, I'm extremely happy with it and I've only had it for a couple of days.

Maybe, five years from now, I will buy a used 28-300 IS. But for now I look forward to having the 17-350 zoom range inside my Domke bag.

Cheers from Los Angeles!