I was about to agree Lukasz; The 35-350 being a 10x zoom range, you'd think it was a crap-tastic lens but some people seem to like it:
http://www.photographyreview.com/35mm,Zoom/Canon,EF,35-350mm,f-3.5-5.6L,USM/ PRD_83419_3128crx.aspx That being said; I personally would steer clear of a lens of this magnitude - I don't care how many people would like it. If it's beyond 3x zoom, I don't know how much quality can be held in the images that it's going to take. Not to mention that the lens is pricey ($2700.00 CDN). I could get the 28-135 IS USMwhich is probably a better lens (albeit, 4.75x zoom approx) AND the 100 f2.8 macro USM and probably still enough money left over for a new body (camera body that is... or whatever body you would choose to spend it on.. *smirk*). Cheers, Dave -----Original Message----- From: Lukasz Kacperczyk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 4:04 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Canon lenses flares as hell! OK - tell me it was a spelling error. A 35-350mm lens? I know we've come a long way and that technology is developing at a very fast pace, but such a zoom can not be a good lens. Well, if it can, I'd like some data for proof, and then I'd eat my humble pie (or Bruce could send me his - I don't think he'll need it anytime soon :) BTW - love the title of your previous post (the one about Zeiss) :) Lukasz -----Original Message----- From: P�l Jensen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 9:34 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Canon lenses flares as hell! I tried out the Canon 35-350 L lens today. It flares more than any Pentax lens ever made even indoors! It's AF was slower than on the Pentax 600/4 in spite of USM (with the EOS 1n). Otherwise they lens looked great. Useful range at least. The optics is probably better than one could expect except for excessive flare. P�l
