Canon 35-350L

amtaylor

amtaylor

Messages
1,782
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
No
I was considering one of these as they are reasonably priced now second hand. What are peoples thoughts? I would like a comparison between it for iq with a 700-300 non l and also a 70-200 f4 non is with a 1.4 extended on. Cheers
 
I have looked at the reviews but I can't find much in the way of comparisons to anything other than the 100-400 so I guess that means its pretty good so perhaps that's enough of a convincer
 
Some more good reviews here: http://photo.net/equipment/canon/35-350

What are you trying to compare it to, and why? Generally people buy this lens because they want an 'all-in' solution for 'most' situations. The only other basis for comparison would be the newer 28-300L (which I've tried and wasn't massively impressed by).

There's the Tamron 28-300 but that's not in the same league as an 'L' lens, though it is much lighter and cheaper.
 
Last edited:
Basically I can get one for the price o would pay for the 70-200f4 non is and and a Tele converter second hand. Im not fused about the whole.range just the telephoto bit but if its a decent lens then I may as well get it.
 
amtaylor said:
Basically I can get one for the price o would pay for the 70-200f4 non is and and a Tele converter second hand. Im not fused about the whole.range just the telephoto bit but if its a decent lens then I may as well get it.
Click to expand...

If you're not fussed about the wider end then why not look at Canon's 70-300 f4-5.6 IS USM. I used to own that lens and it's superb - IQ is excellent and many will argue on par with 'L' quality. It's not expensive either.
 
Last edited:
Yeah I did mention that one in the op but I want a direct comparison really before I go that route.
Cheers for the suggestion
 
Another alternative I've been toying with is the sigma 100-300 f4. I know there is the odd bad review but it seems excellent as long as you get a good copy. I've always got the option of a converter too. Any thoughts on that?
 
amtaylor said:
Another alternative I've been toying with is the sigma 100-300 f4. I know there is the odd bad review but it seems excellent as long as you get a good copy. I've always got the option of a converter too. Any thoughts on that?
Click to expand...

Although Sigma do one or two very good lenses, I personally wouldn't touch the one you mention. I'd advise going to a camera store with your camera and shooting some images onto a card for analysis before making any decision. There is no comparison between that Sigma and the Canon 70-300 - the Canon is notably better (in my opinion). But at the end of the day it's your decision and I'd advise trying the lenses first.
 
Lindsay D said:
Although Sigma do one or two very good lenses, I personally wouldn't touch the one you mention. I'd advise going to a camera store with your camera and shooting some images onto a card for analysis before making any decision. There is no comparison between that Sigma and the Canon 70-300 - the Canon is notably better (in my opinion). But at the end of the day it's your decision and I'd advise trying the lenses first.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure I read a comparison of the various 70-300 lenses (Practical Photography/AP, not sure which) and the Canon was decidedly disappointing?
 
My mate has the 70-300 and he is pleased. However although I do portraits and weddings I would like to do sports and wildlife at some point and it doesn't really have the build quality etc or sadly look the part. Equally I don't have the funds to spend loads either.
 
amtaylor said:
My mate has the 70-300 and he is pleased. However although I do portraits and weddings I would like to do sports and wildlife at some point and it doesn't really have the build quality etc or sadly look the part. Equally I don't have the funds to spend loads either.
Click to expand...

The build quality of the Canon lens is very good, for a non-L. It's better built then the 'consumer grade' lenses, and it's a popular lens with many pros. But if 'looking the part' is your thing then I'm afraid you'll need to re-mortgage your house and buy a bag of'L lenses. Personally I buy whichever tool is best for the job. I have L lenses for my professional work (because they get thrown around and I'm often in dirty/wet locations) but I rarely carry such lenses outside of official working hours. I couldn't care less what anybody might think of me, on the days when I don't have a big white lump on the end of my camera. I've won a few of my awards with the Canon 70-300 IS USM, I think it's a cracking lens for the money, and I'm as picky as hell.
 
Lindsay D said:
I've won a few of my awards with the Canon 70-300 IS USM, I think it's a cracking lens for the money, and I'm as picky as hell.
Click to expand...

I have that lens and although I've read several times that it's not great I personally think that optically it's good if a bit last generation mechanically though IMVHO.
 
It's not that I'm fused about looking the part its more what certain people looking to pay someone to do the work will expect you to have.I am inclined to perhaps go with as a stop gap and then I can always upgrade and if I buy second hand I won't lose out.
 
amtaylor said:
It's not that I'm fused about looking the part its more what certain people looking to pay someone to do the work will expect you to have.I am inclined to perhaps go with as a stop gap and then I can always upgrade and if I buy second hand I won't lose out.
Click to expand...

Most clients know little or nothing about equipment, and even if they do they look at the camera body more than the lens.

What work are you specifically looking to do with the new lens?
 
Lindsay D said:
Most clients know little or nothing about equipment, and even if they do they look at the camera body more than the lens.

What work are you specifically looking to do with the new lens?
Click to expand...

I disagree. I think the lens is what catches the eye. And do you ever see anyone doing any kind of sports photography with a 70-300? Not normally as far as I have seen and not at a standard where they.are making money. Whilst it does seem good I don't think its a work horse. Interestingly virtually all the reviews of the sigma 100-300 f4 are extremely positive comparing it with the canon 100-400 for image quality and lovely bokeh so I am in a bit of a quandary now.
 
amtaylor said:
I disagree. I think the lens is what catches the eye. And do you ever see anyone doing any kind of sports photography with a 70-300? Not normally as far as I have seen and not at a standard where they.are making money. Whilst it does seem good I don't think its a work horse. Interestingly virtually all the reviews of the sigma 100-300 f4 are extremely positive comparing it with the canon 100-400 for image quality and lovely bokeh so I am in a bit of a quandary now.
Click to expand...

Andy, in my attempts to aid you I wasn't aware that your purchase was for paid sports photography which you hadn't previously mentioned. I made my recommendations based on your (brief) original question and my own experiences (in my personal work). As I said earlier, I think the best thing to do is find somewhere where you can try the lenses you're considering.

As for noticing the size of the lens, you're right of course, being female I overlooked that.
 
Ha ha. It's not for paid work yet but I would like to be able to get into that area possibly and a pro looking and hopefully pro picture taking lens will often get you places where little uns might not and often u need the equipment to get the experience to get the work to get the money to buy the equipment you already had to donate a kidney for. Oh well. I shall give it some thought. Thanks for your help.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top