Canon 35-350mm

Messages
3,291
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:
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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".
 
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.
 
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"
 
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.
 
Well, I ummed and ahhed for ages, before deciding to take the plunge.

Was doubly concerned as every one I could find was in Japan. I don't mind buying from abroad, but it seemed impossible to get a definitive final price due to customs, VAT and handling charges.

If I was lucky, it might have made it through unchecked. And if I was unlucky, if could have been upwards of £125 extra.

As I was looking at how to calculate those costs, one came up from a UK reseller.

Should be arriving today so I'll let you know.
 
This is by no means an exhaustive test, but here's what I think so far.

Focusing was a little off to begin with - tried microadjusting it and could not get it sharp at the long end.

Compared to my 100-400 (also set to 350mm @ f/5.6) it was poor.

I don't think I kept any of the test shots with the focus chart, but not great.

I panicked. Thought I'd bought a dud, but then remembered two things.

1. In every review I read, they mentioned this. Doesn't get sharp till about f/8.
2. At the extreme zoom, and wide open, it's going to be at it's poorest.

So I took a deep breath and carried on.

Here's some shots at 350mm and f.5.6 - I don't think anyone would be pleased with these. One or two you'd go 'well it's better than nothing'

5.6_01 by Kell Lunam-Cowan, on Flickr


5.6_03 by Kell Lunam-Cowan, on Flickr

Step it down at all and it improves, but at f/8 - it starts to perform well.

8

8_01 by Kell Lunam-Cowan, on Flickr

And side by side - taken seconds apart, and as you can see the f5.6 is basically unusable.

side by side by Kell Lunam-Cowan, on Flickr

At 6.3 (and through a window)

6.3_01 by Kell Lunam-Cowan, on Flickr

6.3_02 by Kell Lunam-Cowan, on Flickr

7.1

7.1_01 by Kell Lunam-Cowan, on Flickr

And a 100-400mm at 400mm and f/5.6.

400.5.6_01 by Kell Lunam-Cowan, on Flickr

None of this is very scientific, and it's early days. But it definitely renders images nicely. Beautiful bokeh, but you're not going to be going out and shooting handheld on a grey, dull day.

The other thing is the weight - I don't know the figures off hand and everyone suggests that it's lighter than the 100-400 - but it doesn't feel it. Maybe all the weight is at the far end, but it's definitely harder on the wrists.

Need to take it out properly, but first reports are that it's a keeper.
 
Managed to go out for a walk yesterday - not claiming these are great shots, but managed to get both of these without changing lens - the first at 35mm and the second at 350mm.

5D3_4522 by Kell Lunam-Cowan, on Flickr

You can see the bird I zoomed in on bottom right of the one above...

5D3_4525 by Kell Lunam-Cowan, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Just for the sake of completion, I sold this lens earlier this year to trade against a Canon 24-70 2.8.

But looking back at some of these shots above I'd say that if you were going somewhere with good light, and wanted something with a huge range, it's a very good option.

I kind of miss it. But I also don't.

If money were no object, I'd still have it.

But here are some of the last shots I took with it at the start of 2022, which kind of illustrate the frustrations.

These were all taken t the same location but on two different mornings. The first morning was darker, mistier and earlier so the sun wasn't fully up.
Knowing the limitations of the f/8 Really struggled to get anything I was happy with on the first day. Action shots were pretty much out of the question.

As seen here, it was just too dark and because I was forced into f/8, the shutter speed was too slow. Also, very, very noisy.

5D3_7766 by Kell Lunam-Cowan, on Flickr

So I thought maybe a tripod and some nice misty scenes might work, but none of these really did it for me.

5D3_7775 by Kell Lunam-Cowan, on Flickr

5D3_7805 by Kell Lunam-Cowan, on Flickr

Macro function worked well though.

5D3_7807 by Kell Lunam-Cowan, on Flickr

Quite liked this - but then it's still 1/15th so the people in the background are OOF.

5D3_7812 by Kell Lunam-Cowan, on Flickr
 
But then on the second day when the sun was out, and it wasn't so misty:

5D3_7909 by Kell Lunam-Cowan, on Flickr

5D3_7912 by Kell Lunam-Cowan, on Flickr

The fact that it's still relatively wide, means I could also shoot this at 35mm.

5D3_7925 by Kell Lunam-Cowan, on Flickr

THen turn around and dsoot this at 350mm

5D3_7942 by Kell Lunam-Cowan, on Flickr

Still quite noisy though

5D3_7955 by Kell Lunam-Cowan, on Flickr

But it definitely appealed to my eye..

5D3_7979 by Kell Lunam-Cowan, on Flickr

5D3_8001 by Kell Lunam-Cowan, on Flickr

5D3_8010 by Kell Lunam-Cowan, on Flickr
 
All in all.

An interesting experiment.

It didn't cost me a huge amount as even trading the lens in to MPB I still got a lot of what I paid for it.

But it still leaves me needing a 'one size fits all' option.

I might investigate the Tamron mentioned by @Harlequin565 above.

But that's for another time.
 
It also might well be that the solution isn't another lens, but another camera - the thread above mine happened to be about Sony RX-10s with a 24-600mm range.

Maybe something like that would actually be a better solution.

It's all too complicated my my little brain.
 
It also might well be that the solution isn't another lens, but another camera - the thread above mine happened to be about Sony RX-10s with a 24-600mm range.

Maybe something like that would actually be a better solution.

It's all too complicated my my little brain.

As it happens, in the end I did go with the Sony RX10.

I don't think the images from it the have the beautiful bokeh that I got from the 35-350. And its's only a 1" sensor, but it's small enough and light enough to go pretty much anywhere as a good travel camera.

I ended up trading in my 80D and all my remaining EF-S lenses against a SH one from MPB.

So it's simplified that part of my cupboard.

It's probably the route I should have gone down in the first place, but if I saw another 35-350 for a good price, I'd definitely still like to have one,
 
Just read through this. I did think about the 35-350 or the 28-300 for rallying as you need a big range. Obviously I can count out the 35-350 but wonder how it compares to the - i think - newer 28-300
 
Just read through this. I did think about the 35-350 or the 28-300 for rallying as you need a big range. Obviously I can count out the 35-350 but wonder how it compares to the - i think - newer 28-300

I've seen people use them as travel lenses - often in places like India - and get stunning results. I think in places where you'd have almost infinite sun, it would be useful. Especially over swapping out lenses on a dusty street. And I really did like the quality of some of the images.

But my experience would be that for something like rallying where you might need it to be 'fast', then maybe not. I'm thinking of grey, miserable days in Wales where you'd need to be able to use it as open as possible. Rather than have to only use it as f/8 and above.

Not tried the 28-300, but by all accounts it's a better lens.
 
Last edited:
Yes - my thoughts exactly.

Its interesting though as my 70-200 F4 and 300 F4L are a similar generation of lenses and still hold up very well to this day! Hence my thoughts on getting the earlier lenses
 
Yes - my thoughts exactly.

Its interesting though as my 70-200 F4 and 300 F4L are a similar generation of lenses and still hold up very well to this day! Hence my thoughts on getting the earlier lenses

One of my favourite combos of camera and lens was a 5D 'Classic' and a 70-200. And that was only about 3 years ago I was using them together, I regret getting rid of that 5D.
 
Back
Top