Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

35-350mm canon zoom lens

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 6:38:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hi,

Could anyone tell me if they would recommend this rather useful looking
lens. I read a useful looking article in a photo mag, written by a press
photographer, who said he had worn it out because it was so useful, i
don't know the F/ratio or if it was IS.

Thanks

Mark

More about : 350mm canon zoom lens

Anonymous
March 17, 2005 10:04:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

It's an L series lens, apparently "very good" optically and mechanically.
Should be expensive.



"mark.worthington" <mark.worthington@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:41FC38F6.B4567656@ntlworld.com...
>
> Hi,
>
> Could anyone tell me if they would recommend this rather useful looking
> lens. I read a useful looking article in a photo mag, written by a press
> photographer, who said he had worn it out because it was so useful, i
> don't know the F/ratio or if it was IS.
>
> Thanks
>
> Mark
>
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 10:04:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

g n p wrote:

> It's an L series lens, apparently "very good" optically and mechanically.
> Should be expensive.


About $1500.00 US
Related resources
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 10:29:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <41FC38F6.B4567656@ntlworld.com>,
mark.worthington@ntlworld.com says...
> Hi,
>
> Could anyone tell me if they would recommend this rather useful looking
> lens. I read a useful looking article in a photo mag, written by a press
> photographer, who said he had worn it out because it was so useful, i
> don't know the F/ratio or if it was IS.
>
> Thanks
>
> Mark

It's a f/3.5-5.6 lens. 28-300mm, image stabilized.

Probably is only OK optically, considering the range covered.

You could probably do better by getting a 28-70 and a 70-200 with a
teleconveter, but if you've only got room for one lens, it should do all
right.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 10:29:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Brian C. Baird <nospam@please.no> wrote:
>
> mark.worthington@ntlworld.com says...
>> Could anyone tell me if they would recommend this rather useful looking
>> lens. I read a useful looking article in a photo mag, written by a press
>> photographer, who said he had worn it out because it was so useful, i
>> don't know the F/ratio or if it was IS.
>
> It's a f/3.5-5.6 lens. 28-300mm, image stabilized.
> Probably is only OK optically, considering the range covered.
> You could probably do better by getting a 28-70 and a 70-200 with a
> teleconveter, but if you've only got room for one lens, it should
> do all right.

Good advice, but the 35-350/3.5-5.6 L is an old lens without image
stabilization, whereas the 28-300/3.5-5.6 L is a newer model with IS.

Given the price and weight of these lenses, you have to ask why not buy
a Tamron 28-300/3.5-6.3 and a long Canon telephoto with IS, which would
give great results.
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 1:35:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Yup, that's expensive (for me, at least...).




"Jim Townsend" <not@real.address> wrote in message
news:113jocoehf0e0d2@news.supernews.com...
>
> g n p wrote:
>
>> It's an L series lens, apparently "very good" optically and mechanically.
>> Should be expensive.
>
>
> About $1500.00 US
>
>
!