# EF 35-350mm L vs. EF 28-300mm L IS



## katwil (Jan 23, 2012)

I’ve always had an affinity for super zooms. Even though it has many weaknesses, I’ve gotten a lot of use from my Canon EF-S 18-200. With my skill level now surpassing the 18-200 and me moving into the FF world, I’m looking into the EF 35-350L and the EF 28-300L IS.

My selection would be used most often for daytime baseball and shots while on vacation. I’m not too worried about the lack of IS for the sports photography as normally I will fix the lens on a certain area, like home plate, rather than follow a moving player. The most crucial factor there is shutter speed. For travel photography IS could be an issue, but most of my subjects are static, like buildings or mountains.

I’m aware that both lenses are heavy, but my preference would be to carry one heavy lens rather than two, like my 24-105 and 70-200 f/4 IS. Plus, changing lenses in the field is problematic. I would think 80% of my use would be on the 5D mk II and 20% on the 40D (when I want more reach).

Based on this criteria is the 35-350 satisfactory for my needs, at half the $2,400 price of the 28-300, or will I rue the day I went for the older model?


----------



## wickidwombat (Jan 23, 2012)

I had the 28-300 and if you can handle to size its an awesome lens and probably the best super zoom you will get bar none. its just a little slow from an aperture perspective, the other thing is it works well with the kenko DGX 1.4 Tele converter on a 1D to give you 420 f8 and stopped down to f11 give IQ just as good as without the tc but you need lots of available light for this.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jan 23, 2012)

They both seem pretty decent, but if you're going into areas where there might be lots of dust (or other weather/airborne particles) you might want to think twice, since I believe they are both push-poll designs and I've seen some concerns about getting a lot more dust & particles inside as well as on the sensor. Personally, in most cases, it's probably not a problem. But the one place I was really thinking of one of these super-zooms where I can easily stop down pretty good (at least during the day) is Burning Man for this year. But, I'd have serious concerns given it's a push-pull design. The dust is everywhere, and it can be quite abrasive and damage the lens/camera pretty good.


----------



## squarebox (Jan 23, 2012)

katwil said:


> For travel photography IS could be an issue, but most of my subjects are static, like buildings or mountains.



IS doesn't help if the subject moves. IS is for if you/camera moves.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 23, 2012)

I bought a 35-350 last summer, nice lens. The rear element was covered with dust on the outside, but after cleaning it, it was spotless inside.

Here are two sample images taken from the same point and focused on the same flower at min and max focal lengths. Handheld.

at 35mm: 







at 350mm:


----------



## briansquibb (Jan 23, 2012)

Have you thought about the 70-300L - and ideal travel lens as it is light, compact and gives excellent IQ. You could add a 24-105L and still have less weight in the bag whilst getting better IQ

Brian


----------



## Flake (Jan 23, 2012)

If you buy either of these lenses you will almost certainly need a monopod, they are both very high profile, and you will be noticed. For me 35mm is nothing like wide enough for a 'super zoom' 28mm isn't too bad, but expect to buy a 17 - 40mm f/4 L to go with it.

These lenses are great for when you can't take more than one lens, or where you don't know what focal length you'll need. I used the 28 - 300mm IS L to photograph a fast moving steam train, the best shots were from 300mm to about 100mm, everyone else had standard zooms - usual ribbing about image quality and they probably got a better quality of blur! The problem here being the closer an object gets the greater its apparant speed becomes. 

The image quality is surprisingly good, maybe not quite there with some other lenses, but certainly of a commercial quality, I've never heard a picture editor complain, but an image captured is always better than one which isn't, and that's what this lens is for!


----------



## katwil (Jan 23, 2012)

Thanks for the responses. Based on these and some research I’ve done since posting, my key concern with both lenses is what the minimum shutter speed will need to be to avoid using a tripod or monopod. I know this will vary by user, and may vary by focal length- I’m uncertain about that. To me the benefit of using a single lens would be diminished somewhat by the need to carry even a monopod.


----------



## engboy1972 (Jan 23, 2012)

I have shot with a 35-350 for the last 18 years. I have traveled the world with it and had it in all kinds of weather conditions. The push - pull design has never been a problem for me as far as debris getting lodged in the barrel. It is slower at the 350 end for f-stop, but it is workable. I got a 70-200 2.8 is last year and I still find myself reaching for my 35-350 more. 

I think the fact that Canon CPS still supports and repairs this lens speaks to it's relavance. I have dropped the lens twice over the years and both times Canon brought it back to life ;D Either the 28-300 or the 35-350 would be good choices. For me, I like the 35-350 because it provides me more reach.


----------



## lol (Jan 23, 2012)

I had a 35-350 for a short time, although for my uses I wanted a 100-400 like lens with more on the wide end. I didn't miss the lack of IS myself since I mostly shoot wildlife and need a fast shutter anyway for subject motion blur prevention. I have not felt a need for a monopod or tripod for general shooting with these focal lengths on crop body. In all but the worst light you can get workable shutter speeds as long as you're tolerant of moderate-high ISO settings (say, ISO3200).

Side note: the only reason I didn't keep the 35-350 was that the used sample I got was a bit too well used and had zoom/AF issue, and I got a refund. That put me off looking for another used sample.


----------

