All ¨L¨ Lenses in One Package.

Na...

I sold my 28-300 when I found a 35-350L lens.

I found the 35-350 to be sharper (yeah, I'm a detail/sharpness snob) than the newer version.  The colors are the same, or as close as I can see, many of the other details are very close to the same, but the photo detail...the 28-300 can't match the 35-350.

The funny thing is, the 28-300 replaced...the old 35-350.  But...not in my book.

Mike

Mike VanV wrote:

Na...

I sold my 28-300 when I found a 35-350L lens.

I found the 35-350 to be sharper (yeah, I'm a detail/sharpness snob) than the newer version. The colors are the same, or as close as I can see, many of the other details are very close to the same, but the photo detail...the 28-300 can't match the 35-350.

The funny thing is, the 28-300 replaced...the old 35-350. But...not in my book.

Mike

For a "do it all" type lens 35mm is too narrow. That's probably why they went with 28 in the new version. For an amateur wildlife photography lens the 35-350 is probably better. But something like the Sigma 50-500 is now superior to both. For a general purpose lens the RF 24-240mm is better than all of the above.

Since the EF lenses are made to work on film cameras they're low distortion compared to mirrorless lenses so naturally, going super wide to super long results in some sacrifices.

Plus, we all know Canon hates poor amateur wildlife photographers...

Jeff Peterman wrote:

I was a little disappointed using it at high ISO... it doesn't look ¨too¨ sharp as I expected to be an L lens of this price tag,

I must admit that your statement makes me question the whole review. Image quality due to the lens should be consistent across all ISOs - there really is no connection between the quality of the image leaving the rear of the lens and the camera ISO.

Now, the all-in-one lens is a little slow at longer focal lengths, and the slower aperture means you would need higher ISO. This is physical limitation of a lens covering such a wide focal length.

This may be better than average for a zoom covering such a wide range. But there is no way that it is optically as good as the newer L lenses covering narrower ranges. The main thing that makes this an L lens is the robustness and weather proofing, but I bet my cheap 55-250 STM lens is just as good optically over the 55-250mm range. (The STM lens is as good as my 70-200 f2.8L IS where there ranges overlap - except for the faster aperture, robustness, and weather sealing.)

is the 55-250 STM worth trading up for?  currently i use the 55-250 ll, the original lens that came out years before the STM.

thanks.