35-350L and 28-300L IS comparison-anyone done it?

George

George

Chasseur Haggis extraordinaire
Suspended / Banned
Messages
3,533
Edit My Images
Yes
The title is, I think, self explanatory. I know Canon Bob has a 35-350 as do I, and I've found it to be a very useful lens, but I wondered if anyone has used both and what they thought.
 
28-300 blows away the 35-350 for speed everytime, of course it is pin sharp. Kinda wished i brought this instead of the 100-400, would definately get more use.:lol:
Dean:)
 
Yes, Dean, I'm sure it's faster focusing, but it is IQ particularly at the extremities I'm concerned about. I think it must be a bit hairy at 28mm especially. And of course 3rd generation IS will help a lot.
 
Dino f said:
.... of course it is pin sharp. Kinda wished i brought this instead of the 100-400, would definately get more use.:lol:
Dean:)
Click to expand...
Dean,
Sorry, I can't quite go along with this...(unless you were being a little sarcastic). Once we've used up the term "pin sharp" for a 10x zoom then there's few analogies left to describe some of the medium to high end primes which are certainly "much sharper" than this lens....as indeed are other L class zooms
Test charts show that it performs very well on the wide end when stopped down to f/8 but the longer you go, the softer it gets....beyond 200mm it seriously lags your 100-400 so I think you'd have been disappointed unless you are mainly interested in the short end.
All four of the 70-200 series have far better resolving powers but it's unfair to pit it against them...who would buy a 70-200/2.8 if this lens was competative IQ'wise whilst seeling at a similar price.
At the end of the day it's an excellent 10x zoom with weather-sealing and a worthy successor to the 35-350 for news togs and amateurs needing the right lens without knowing what length they'll need.

Bob
 
Do you think it's worth the dosh to upgrade, Bob? shedload of money....have you used both?
 
"Worth" is a very individual qualification and difficult to argue on someone else's behalf.

For me...no, firstly because I don't use it other than times when I want a body and lens "just in case" and secondly because I can sling this in the car boot or in checked luggage and know it won't suffer....it's bombproof, the IS wouldn't be.
For IQ (don't read sharpness here), almost every other lens I have is better.
For flexibility, I don't have another lens that gets near it.
Put the 35-350L, 1.4x T/C and a 25mm tube in your bag and you can take an average shot of almost anything.

Bob
 
I find my 35-350 very flexible and as Bob says, useful when you don't know what the day is going to bring. I chose it over the 28-300 for weight, price and focal length. I got the 35-350 second-hand for about £600 whereas the 28-300 would cost twice that. I also knew I would use the longer end more often and the 350 was more useful than the 300. Looking back over my images I was right and still glad I bought it. Still the 35 comes in handy for the occasional situation so it makes a great everyday lens.

I also considered the 100-400 and I am still glad I went for the 35-350 due to greater versatility of the wider end of the focal range.

IQ wise I am happy with it but I don't have any primes to compare against. The 70-200 range is sharper but that is not a useful focal range for me. I am looking at getting the Sigma 120-300 2.8 next for improved IQ, speed and compatibility with TC's.

All in I love this lens and wouldn't trade for a 28-300 :D
 
Bob, that's a really good reason not to upgrade, and I must admit I hadn't quite thought of the lens in those terms, but you are absolutely right. It doesn't owe me anything, and the bombproof side hadn't occurred to me.....hope the word bom...b hasn't set the twigs fluttering.....but the strange thing is that Canon say you can't use a 1.4 (or 2x) converter with this, but it always works ok for me! oh dear, used the words Ca..non and b..om.b in the same sentence!!........
 
Andy, just seen your post, I have a 100-400 (as I'm sure Bob does...he has everything including 3 t/s lenses!! and I've been using the 35/350 for the odd shot if the others were not available (back to Canon for cal) and it is pretty good, but I still wanted to see what came up with a post on the forum on comparison. So far, I can't see a reason to change. Thanks all for the input.
George
 
George said:
Andy, just seen your post, I have a 100-400 (as I'm sure Bob does...he has everything including 3 t/s lenses!! and I've been using the 35/350 for the odd shot if the others were not available (back to Canon for cal) and it is pretty good, but I still wanted to see what came up with a post on the forum on comparison. So far, I can't see a reason to change. Thanks all for the input.
George
Click to expand...

No George, there isn't a 100-400 in the bag. I've got three f/2.8 zooms for occasional use but the rest are all primes of one sort or another. I don't want to start a riot by saying this but I believe the 70-200's offer better IQ (especially isolation) than the 100-400 and a 1.4x T/C works okay if needed. Longer than that and the 300/4 or 400/5.6 are marched out if there's enough good light.

Bob
 
I know, Bob that this is a never ending discussion re the 70-200 and 100-400, all I can say is that I've had shots on my 100-400 blown up to A1 and they are as sharp as a sharp thing, so I'm happy (and that is what counts....!!).
You mentioned the lack of IS on the 35-350, and it's advantage from the point of ruggedness, and to be honest it's a point I hadn't considered!
Do we know if the IS mechanism is susceptible to damage?
I've not seen any posts on the forum from people with damaged IS, but maybe I haven't looked hard enough!
 
I have to ask, if you already have a 100-400 & 35-350, why consider the 28-300? You seem to have the super zoom range pretty well covered. Would you not be better off with a 24-105L f/4 together with your sharpy sharp 100-400? Then just leave the 35-350 for those times when you are not sure what the subject will be.

Just a thought as I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve?
 
andyjayh said:
I have to ask, if you already have a 100-400 & 35-350, why consider the 28-300? You seem to have the super zoom range pretty well covered. Would you not be better off with a 24-105L f/4 together with your sharpy sharp 100-400? Then just leave the 35-350 for those times when you are not sure what the subject will be.

Just a thought as I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve?
Click to expand...
Yes, Andy, I see the point you are making, actually I already have a 24-105L IS, and the reason for my post was I was interested to see if anyone had experience with both lenses ie 35-350v28-300.
I find since I got the 2 (24/105 and 100/400) I'm really not using the 35/350 except for rare occasions and as I've just got a 1Ds mk3, I suspect that whereas before I used the tele on the 40D and the wide zooms on my old 1Ds mk1, the autofocus may be such on the new camera that I'll want to use that with the tele lenses and the 24/105 on the 40D, although obviously losing a bit of w/angle.
I need to do some tests on the 2 autofocus systems to see which is better, or indeed quicker, and as I only just got the new body, I haven't had a chance to do that yet.
Sorry if that sounds a bit tortuous, really was just doing a bit of fishing of other people's experience.
The 28/300 is a really expensive bit of kit, though.
What I think I'd really like is a 400mm prime, but although everyone sings the praises of the 5.6, I can't see it being a huge improvement on my 100/400, so might have to save up pennies for a larger min aperture on, although I've heard rumors that the DO one is a bit soft. Oh dear, choices!!
 
Heard the same, the DO is is slightly soft. However the f5.6 is meant to be sharp as a tack, even compared to the 100-400 :D

Hire one from Stewart to try :thumbs:
 
I thought I'd bump up this thread (I'd only start another one).

Today I have seen a 2nd hand 35-350 for sale for £425. You can tell this lens is worn and well used, however the glass looks perfect. I tried it on a 400D body and I was really impressed how minimal camera shame I got because its weight actually helps. I once tried a 75-300 plastic thing in the same way in a shop and it was shaking all over the place as it was so light.

Anyway, my concerns are the price (is this cheap?), the narrow aperature and the quality of the image.

If I get it, it would be used on a 400D. Is the range too much on a cropped sensor'd body?

Oh and convince me to buy it if you can lol
 
Price is good as these L lenses last forever. I bought mine just over a year ago now and paid £600. Don't worry about the cropped sensor, I used mine on my 350D and then my 40D, both have 1.6 cropped sensors same as the 400D.

The narrow aperture is only really and issue with low light levels but to be honest you will pay lots more to get faster glass. The advantage this lens has over the 100-400 is the extra range at the low end making it a very versatile lens. You just take this lens if you're not sure what subjects you will find.

Don't worry about the sharpness of the lens, this is not an issue;

2428532525_693c208a3f_o.jpg


Taken handheld. Take a look at my flickr site for more examples as most of these were taken with the 35-350L
 
Thanks :D That was tripod mounted and in quite a shady area. As I say, no need to worry about the sharpness of the lens :thumbs:
 
I'm getting quite convinced I should buy it

I was quite surprised at the weight of the lens as well, you could use it as a weapon lol
 
You should try a Sigma 120-300 2.8 :eek: feels light after I have had that on the body for a while :lol:
 
my godfather uses the 28-300 for all of his aviation work and I nor he can fault it. though expensive it is very versatile as he didnt change lens once during the 2007 RIAT. Where I was changing for close ups, distance and even medium range shots. I would class the 28-300 as the ultimate walkabout lens. Oh, sharpness / saturation / contrast is very nice, even on 35mm slide.

King.
 
30 psi, it's a great lens. If I sold mine, which I have been considering I would be looking for £100 more than the asking price for yours, and I really think for that money it's a steal.
Think you've just convinced me to hang on to it!!
George
 
Ok, it looks like tomorrow when I pop out for lunch it will be an expensive one.

It's a Jacobs shop by the way. Are they open to discounts, and would hard cash notes encourage them more?
 
Woohoo bought it :D

Managed to scam a Lowepro case and a Skylight 1B filter for free too
 
Excellent, good deal you got there. Now get out and start shooting :D
 
andyjayh said:
Excellent, good deal you got there. Now get out and start shooting :D
Click to expand...

Well I never made it outside due to the rain this evening, hopefully the weekend is good. I took some shots of the lens though :geek:

2496082560_2096c80587.jpg


2496082306_025e8c0d9b.jpg
 
Looking forward to the posts after the weekend :D
 
Looks in good nick, well done and I think you got a bargain!!
 
For it's ruggedness and flexibility you've got a bargain there Martin.

Bob
 
andyjayh said:
Looking forward to the posts after the weekend :D
Click to expand...

Well I decided to take a walk over to my local park on a hangover to give the lens a work out. It's nice and sturdy, but it's noticeable how the small 400D isn't ideal for it. Next purchase will be upgrading to 40D I think.

I took a few shots, and where the shutter speeds are 1/400 and faster it produces some good results at 350mm. It just goes to show that holding the camera steady is essential.

This was shot at 1/400 f/8, ISO200, 320mm:


Click for larger version
 
Excellent shot there Martin, hope you are pleased with the results :thumbs:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top