EF 35-350mm L vs. EF 28-200mm usm

Is the EF 35-350mm L worth its money? 1500,-$

The EF 28-200mm usm is just 450,-$ and compared to the lens above, quite cheap...

Does anybody have experiences with these 2 lenses?

Just need ONE lens for everything, and should be very good.

...help...

Not a rhetorical question, but why buy a DSLR if you want 'one (compromised) lens for everything'?

If you needs high FPS, you need a better tele. High ISO? need a faster lens. Better color? Get a G3 and profile it, a superzoom is not gonna have too good colour anyway. Shallow depth of field? You don't want a superzoom for that.

I apologise if you already have better lenses, and need a superzoom for a specific purpose, but it sounds like you intend it to be your only lens.

But to answer your question, I have not used either, but I'm pretty sure it is worth the difference.

DigialPowerShot said:

Is the EF 35-350mm L worth its money? 1500,-$

The EF 28-200mm usm is just 450,-$ and compared to the lens above,
quite cheap...

Does anybody have experiences with these 2 lenses?

Just need ONE lens for everything, and should be very good.

...help...

Click to expand...

I have a Canon EF 28-200 and I like it! It seems to review pretty well at http://www.photographyreview.com

--
Photography is light!

Thanks!

I have already a G3, and want to buy a tleconverter for it, so I have up to 245mm tele on it.

DSLR: didn't buy it yet, but I intend to and I don't want to change the lens. It seems like the EF 35-350mm L is the "wife" for everything. (but expensive)

Do u think if I'll go up to 350mm, the colors aren't that good anymore with these lens? ("L") (in combination with EOS 10D)

DigialPowerShot said:

Is the EF 35-350mm L worth its money? 1500,-$

Click to expand...

Need one lens, and it needs to be very good?, the 35-350 is good, really, i had a lot of lenses before i kept this one. Heavy, expensive, build like a tank, draws a lot of attraction.

http://www.pbase.com/rudydegeus/

No beautiful pics, just anultered test-shots, even one overexposed ;-)

Rudy

DigialPowerShot said:

Is the EF 35-350mm L worth its money? 1500,-$

The EF 28-200mm usm is just 450,-$ and compared to the lens above,
quite cheap...

Does anybody have experiences with these 2 lenses?

Just need ONE lens for everything, and should be very good.

...help...

Click to expand...

--

(PLEASE DO NOT list equipment in your signature as this adversely affects searching.)

Bought one, but never needed it, the combination of 10d, grip and 35-350 is quite stable.
And i have shaky hands!!!

Greetings

Rudy

Thanks a lot!

Rudy de Geus said:

DigialPowerShot said:

Is the EF 35-350mm L worth its money? 1500,-$

Click to expand...

Need one lens, and it needs to be very good?, the 35-350 is good,
really, i had a lot of lenses before i kept this one. Heavy,
expensive, build like a tank, draws a lot of attraction.

Click to expand...

I kept my other lenses but I do use my 35-350 when I think I won't have time to swap lenses.

I do love this lens.

DigialPowerShot said:

DSLR: didn't buy it yet, but I intend to and I don't want to change
the lens. It seems like the EF 35-350mm L is the "wife" for
everything. (but expensive)

Click to expand...

I've used one. It's a very nice lens, but I sure wouldn't want it to be the only one I had. It's pretty heavy. Anyway, if you're looking for sample pics from this lens, most of these were taken with one:

http://www.pbase.com/decloedt/animals/

How SHARP are Canon L Zooms?

I have recently been experimenting with Digital images for aerial photography using my new EOS-1DS and am searching for the best lenses for this job. I find the zooms quite appealling from the standpoint that many options are available from the same distance (thus increasing productivity and decreasing "air time"). I do however realize there is a price to pay in image quality in any zoom and don't want to produce any images that aren't up to professional standards. The most useful lens I have found in the zoom range is the 35-350mm L, however I am uneasy about what kind of quality it will produce (especially since aerials are mostly a maize of "details" that must be sharp). I do have the 24-70mm L which works quite well, but it's too short for a lot of applications.

Perhaps I should stick to a handful of fixed focal length L lenses (much the way I am already doing with my Pentax 67 and 5 lenses). Any advice?

--
Skot Weidemann