Canon 35-350mm

Messages
1,343
Name
Kell
Edit My Images
Yes
Has anyone on here got one of these?

I know there's no such thing as a 'one lens does it all', but this would seem to be a fairly good compromise.

But it's not cheap.

And it's an old lens and design.

What would I use it for? When we go out for walks as a family, having this sort of range would be great and save me taking a couple of lenses for what are only ever going to be snapshots.

On the other hand, if I'm lucky enough to spot something nice, it would be good to have something with good optics that means I could get a good pic out of it.

I'm not too bothered about the weight (I would normally carry a 70-200 2.8 on the camera with a (third party) 24-70 2.8 in a bag) but it looks to be a hefty beast

As there are several up for sale on eBay for around the £500 mark, is it worth a buy?

Or is there something else with a similar range that would be 'better' - and by better that could have several meanings:

  • As good but cheaper
  • Something newer, but as good
  • Lighter
  • Something with not quite the range, but that is decent.
  • etc
  • etc
Any and all advice gratefully received...

Thanks.
 
Last edited:
OP
Kell
Messages
1,343
Name
Kell
Edit My Images
Yes
(PS - would need to be an EF fitment)
 
Messages
298
Edit My Images
Yes
Considerably dearer, but there is also the Canon EF 28-300mm f3.5-5.6 L IS USM Lens, which I believe is a rather better quality beast.
 
Messages
6,312
Name
Ian
Edit My Images
No
I have the Tamron 28-300 which is really compact, light and very good quality. I've used (in the past) both 24-104 f/4 and 28-70 f/2.8 and they're very unwieldy (weight & size). The Tamron is a perfect walkabout lens for me and is my perfect compromise of image quality, reach and portability.
 

LongLensPhotography

Th..th..that's all folks!
Messages
15,890
Name
[Censored] Fruitcake
Edit My Images
No
OP
Kell
Messages
1,343
Name
Kell
Edit My Images
Yes
I have the Tamron 28-300 which is really compact, light and very good quality. I've used (in the past) both 24-104 f/4 and 28-70 f/2.8 and they're very unwieldy (weight & size). The Tamron is a perfect walkabout lens for me and is my perfect compromise of image quality, reach and portability.
It seems like there are quite a few versions of that Tamron - which one do you have?

Thanks
 

Canon Bob

Loves the Enemy
Messages
10,744
Name
Bob
Edit My Images
Yes
It's a solid old lens that was often used by news togs to cover all eventualities. I had one for several years and was quite pleased with the output although it doesn't compare to the quality of the 70-200's. As a 10x zoom then it's fair to say that it meets expectations as long as your expectations are realistic.
 
OP
Kell
Messages
1,343
Name
Kell
Edit My Images
Yes
This thing may be quite good optically I suspect https://www.canon.co.uk/for_home/pr...inema/cine_lenses/cn-e30-300mm_t2.95-3.7_l_s/

I don't even want to know what it costs... can't afford it either way.

I doubt that old zoom would have the critical sharpness considering they couldn't make a decent 24-70mm or pretty much any other sharp zoom lens except the 70-200s back in the day...
From the reviews I've read I think you're right in terms of its ability versus primes or later zooms. But then I also read about the way it renders light with more of a filmic quality (unsurprising in some ways I suppose) and that its benefits outweigh the tack sharpness you'd get with a more recent lens.

The problem is, many of those reviews are some 15 years old, and so they're comparing it to lenses on things like 10Ds. I'd be interested in any real-world, first-hand experience that's more recent.

It does seem to be fairly devisive though - not many people are just OK with it, people seem to either really love it, or say it's not worth the money.

In fairness, there's a nagging doubt in the back of my mind that says "If it was any good, they'd still be making it".
 

LongLensPhotography

Th..th..that's all folks!
Messages
15,890
Name
[Censored] Fruitcake
Edit My Images
No
From the reviews I've read I think you're right in terms of its ability versus primes or later zooms. But then I also read about the way it renders light with more of a filmic quality (unsurprising in some ways I suppose) and that its benefits outweigh the tack sharpness you'd get with a more recent lens.

The problem is, many of those reviews are some 15 years old, and so they're comparing it to lenses on things like 10Ds. I'd be interested in any real-world, first-hand experience that's more recent.

It does seem to be fairly devisive though - not many people are just OK with it, people seem to either really love it, or say it's not worth the money.

In fairness, there's a nagging doubt in the back of my mind that says "If it was any good, they'd still be making it".
Well, what are your expectations with it? A) a small image for newspaper, blog, instagram etc from mid to low res camera; or B) properly large prints? And then detailed landscapes vs people / action where only the central part really matters?

In fact if you are doing newspaper stuff you might still be better off with a couple older / inexpensive bodies with even 1st gen 24-105 and 70-200 f/4 or 70-300 f/5.6L.
 
Messages
6,312
Name
Ian
Edit My Images
No
It seems like there are quite a few versions of that Tamron - which one do you have?

Thanks
I believe it's the EF mount one : "Tamron 28-300mm F3.5-6.3 Di VC PZD"
 
OP
Kell
Messages
1,343
Name
Kell
Edit My Images
Yes
Well, what are your expectations with it? A) a small image for newspaper, blog, instagram etc from mid to low res camera; or B) properly large prints? And then detailed landscapes vs people / action where only the central part really matters?

In fact if you are doing newspaper stuff you might still be better off with a couple older / inexpensive bodies with even 1st gen 24-105 and 70-200 f/4 or 70-300 f/5.6L.
As I said originally, it would be so that I can carry one lens that would give me wide and long reach and decent (if not amazing) IQ for those times when I'm out and about with the family.

When I had my 600d, I bought a Sigma 18-250. That was a fairly decent combo for walkabout stuff, and I got some nice shots from it. But it wasn't that sharp, and I actually really disliked the Bokeh from it. I don't know what it was about it, but it was ugly. It was only when I sold that camera and wondered which lenses to keep and which to sell, that I realised the Sigma was way worse than the Canon kit lens (18-135) for IQ.
 
Messages
763
Name
Clint
Edit My Images
Yes
It is not that long but reviews have been positive. More for full frame.
 
Top