Should I buy an old L series USM but Non IS lens? I have seen a 35-350 L series canon USM lens for sale for around £800. Now, I am trying to save costs to pay for an EOS 5D MkIII, and...

Neilp Loc: Jersey, C.I.

I have seen a 35-350 L series canon USM lens for sale for around £800.

Now, I am trying to save costs to pay for an EOS 5D MkIII, and this lens is exactly the range in a zoom that I am looking for, for a lot less than buying a new modern Image stabilisation lens.
But what do you all think? thoughts welcome

Neil

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

Neilp wrote:

I have seen a 35-350 L series canon USM lens for sale for around £800.

Now, I am trying to save costs to pay for an EOS 5D MkIII, and this lens is exactly the range in a zoom that I am looking for, for a lot less than buying a new modern Image stabilisation lens.
But what do you all think? thoughts welcome

Neil

If it were me, I'd spend less on the body and put my cash into the lens.

This seems like a good lens; it got good reviews on FM

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=15

So I'm not saying it's not a good lens but for the cash outlay of that body, I'd be more inclined to buy a 60D (cropped sensor) and another L lens :) (or even a used 5D MK II)

Keep in mind that the closest focusing with that lens is .63 meters.

Neilp Loc: Jersey, C.I.

I understand what you are saying, but in my Introduce your self post I waffled on and basically I do not want to go crop sensor, personal reasons as much as anything.

I would get a body that I want to start with, OK have to compromise on the lens at first,
But had not realised the minimum focus distance was 6.3 m..that is out then

I have been thinking about a DSLR for a while..2 years..and was about to buy a MkII, till i started comparing other makes D700 etc, .then i could not bring myself to part with money for a MkII..despite the fact it would have done me and would have been a major upgrade to my current camera. So have been waiting a long time for the MkIII

thanks for pointing that out to me

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

Neilp wrote:

But had not realised the minimum focus distance was 6.3 m..that is out then

I understand...that's a good lens anyway but it's 0.63 meters...NOT 6.3 meters! :) (just over 1/2 meter in other words)

Neilp Loc: Jersey, C.I.

Ah. yes..I see have re read that post. that is OK..I can handle 0.63 !!

I was just off out to do a quick family portrait while all the clan were together. so read too quickly

wilsondl2 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska

How steady are you? If you are very steady you don"t need it. Are you going to take a lot of low light pictures with slow shutter speed? Then you do need IS. Are you going to use a tripod on most of your tele shots. If you are you don't need it. Look at your ability to hold a camera steady and how you are going to use the lens then decide. - Dave

Glenn K

Do you have another viable option for a lens in that zoom range? Canon has a 28-300L w/IS that goes for about $2700 (that's over 4000 Pounds, isn't it?). Seems like you could get the 35-350L, plus a pretty nice tripod, and still have some money left over toward a 5DIII. Any other options in older zooms in the desired zoom range? If not, that pretty much makes the decision doesn't it?

Neilp Loc: Jersey, C.I.

Already got myself a nice big hefty Benbo "all terrain" tripod, plus its little brother..plus a selection of Velbon, 'standard' style tripods..so that is a saving already...
:)

that 28 -300 sounds great.shame about the price

Neilp Loc: Jersey, C.I.

think you did the conversion the wrong way around..it would be about £1660 pounds..so less than the body..but still a bit much this year.
The plan is to get the body..plus a reasonable or even cheapo lens to 'learn' the camera..that will give me time to save for a god lens

But even a cheap Canon lens, is still going to be a step up from what I currently have..so still a winner, if somewhat mismatched to start with

Glenn K

Neilp wrote:

Already got myself a nice big hefty Benbo "all terrain" tripod, plus its little brother..plus a selection of Velbon, 'standard' style tripods..so that is a saving already...
:)

that 28 -300 sounds great.shame about the price

Agree, does look like a great middle-distance lens. But for the price, I think you just may have the better deal.
And I know where to look if I need to borrow a tripod in the C.I.s
:lol:

Glenn K

Neilp wrote:

think you did the conversion the wrong way around..it would be about £1660 pounds..so less than the body..but still a bit much this year.
The plan is to get the body..plus a reasonable or even cheapo lens to 'learn' the camera..that will give me time to save for a god lens

But even a cheap Canon lens, is still going to be a step up from what I currently have..so still a winner, if somewhat mismatched to start with

I am math-challenged (as we say in the States).

jimberton Loc: Michigan's Upper Peninsula

if you learn how to shoot with proper shutter speed, you do not need the IS. i have a 70-200mm2.8L with IS and have never turned on the IS. i got used to using my 24-70mm2.8L and it does not have IS, so when i bought the 70-200-i just never turned on the IS. i haven't even tried out the IS. kinda wish i would have saved some bucks and bought the non-is version.

IS didn't really exist in the old film cameras...how in the world did they take such great pictures?

wilsondl2 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska

jimberton wrote:

if you learn how to shoot with proper shutter speed, you do not need the IS. i have a 70-200mm2.8L with IS and have never turned on the IS. i got used to using my 24-70mm2.8L and it does not have IS, so when i bought the 70-200-i just never turned on the IS. i haven't even tried out the IS. kinda wish i would have saved some bucks and bought the non-is version.

IS didn't really exist in the old film cameras...how in the world did they take such great pictures?

I think part of the problem with camera shake is that those new to SLR's is that those who came from point and shoot still hold their cameras at arms length and look at the live view to compose their pictures. I don't know how anyone could hold their camer still doing this. Old timers learned to take a solid stance, pusth their camera against their forhead,lean against something etc etc to keep the camera still. No need for IS if you do this. - Dave

deanc2006 Loc: lancaster ohio

you will probable keep what ever lens you get threw the next several camera bodies. a friend of mine was showing me a camera magazine with a camera that was $1700 it had 3.7 megapixels this was only 10 years ago the canon 70-200 2.8 has been around for years and are still a top selling lens just food for thought

harsan51

I have this lens on a 60D with great results. You will need to check be for buying but I think the lens does not suit a full frame camrea.