Canon's 35-350mm f/3.5-5.6 L USM lens

[raffal]

I am considering this lens …anybody can share their experience with it ?-) what would b the inexpensive alternative??,..- tx raf

[Sanford]

It looks like it would be very heavy.

[Ken Katz]

Perhaps you will get lucky and person who actually used the lens will respond on PN, but given the lower traffic and more limited EOS users (than previously on PN), that may not happen.

My thought is that it is likely to be quite sharp for a superzoom, and it is surprisingly light, about 3 lb, similar to the 70-200 f2.8L.  Unless you plan on using it on a tripod or only in bright light, the lack of IS would have a significant impact on its usage.  Alternatives would be the Canon 70-300 f4-f5.6 IS, 70-300 f4-F5.6L IS, or the 28-200 IS.  All have IS and the 70-300 lenses are very good optically, the EF 28-200IS has a less stellar reputation.  There is an EF 28-300 f3.5-f5.6L IS, but it likely to be more expensive and it is quite heavy.

[gwhitegeog]

I did use one for a while. Optically they were complex but surprisingly good given the inevitable design compromises. As noted above, the 35-350 was quickly replaced with the 28- version. There was relatively little barrel distortion at the short end. Pincushion was more a problem at the long end when fully open, I recall. I currently use the 70-300 f5.6L and 24-105L on full frame cameras (e.g. 5D / 6Ds). I rarely find I need the full range in one lens. However, in summary, if you can get the 28 / 35 - 300x L for a good price, you won't be disappointed (optically). But it is heavy, for sure. Hence, you'll need to IS.

[William Michael]

On 2/9/2024 at 8:45 AM, raffal said:

I am considering this lens [35-350mm f/3.5-5.6 L USM] …anybody can share their experience with it . . .

I used one for a job, in harsh conditions, and for which I decided I would not change lenses on my main camera.

I have since also used the 28 to 350, it is a tad better optically and for me the wider FL was an exceptional advantage.

The IS is very useful on both lenses.

I rented both lenses: neither would I buy, because for 99% of scenarios I would opt to carry a second or third camera, or change lenses.  

The 35 to 350 IS L was released in 1993, subsequently replaced in 2004 by the 28 to 350 IS L - the point here being that spare parts for the 35 to 350 might be scarce, maybe also too technicians familiar with the lens: good lens technicians seem scarcer each day, anyway.

My comment regarding IQ, is that both suffered a bit when fully open, across the whole zoom compass, but one has to realize, as nicely stated above "but surprisingly good given the inevitable design compromises".

On 2/9/2024 at 8:45 AM, raffal said:

what would b the inexpensive alternative??,.

One can crop in post to attain a tighter FoV, therefore, for inexpensive alternatives, I'd suggest: EF28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 USM or the EF28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM (note the latter has IS the former does not).

If the long end is more important to you, then, I think Ken might be referring to the two EF70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS lenses - I concur that both are pretty good but the EF70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM (2016) is much better.

WW