Are these lens any good? What are they used for?

[Aakajx]

Canon EF 90-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM Lens & EF 35-70mm f/3.5-4.5 ?

 

[wyogirl]

Not sure if they are any good. They aren't particularly fast. They are EF Canon mounts, Most Canon DSLR's can use EF lenses.

 

[Gavjenks]

I'm sure they're both fine in sharpness, etc. when used in their midranges. I would be very skeptical of either of these if use at their extreme values (all the way zoomed out or in with a wide open aperture). Ergonomics and build quality, dunno, never shot with those in particular.

90-300 strikes me as either a sort of casual wildlife lens (like large or docile birds, or mammals), or for close-cropped (studio) or outdoor portraits of people (headshots, shoulder shots, all the way up to hand closeups etc. Or more of the body outdoors, but you'd have to stand super far away). Although it wouldn't be terribly stellar at either due to being fairly slow (small maximum aperture. Wouldn't get super nice, creamy backgrounds separated out from a crisp subject, without a lot of effort) Mostly just seems like probably a fun budget option for getting into that sort of stuff. Not really appropriate for sports, despite being a long telephoto, because it's too slow to freeze motion well.

The 35-70 is probably designed as some sort of general purpose / tourist lens, for architecture/scenery/artsy shots on vacation or around town just for fun. It's right aroudn "standard" focal length for such things, with wiggle room on either side for when space is tight or when you want to change perspective a bit. As far as portraiture, uh... I don't know. That's a weird range for that a bit. I guess it would be about right for full body shots of people like if you were doing clothing fashion. Also pretty notably slow for a lens with such a short and wider range, implying also a bit of a budget lens. Slowness isn't much of a problem for day to day artsy around town shots. It is a bit annoying when shooting people, though.

If the price is right on them, go for it, though, these are fine sorts of things to learn with. You can use almost anything to good effect at first.

I would suggest however ALSO getting one of the $100ish 50mm 1.8 lenses, though, no matter what. It will give you a taste of
A) What a nice FAST lens is like (night shooting! nice blurry backgrounds and selective focus! Action shooting!)
B) What a prime lens is like (one focal length only, no zoom) -- lighter usually, generally higher quality optics, but you "zoom with your feet."
C) Much nicer portrait flexibility (in terms of effects, not focal length) without breaking the bank.
D) it's 50mm, which is very midrange length. So that no matter what other crazy thing you get, you won't end up too frustrated, even if all you have to work with otherwise is a 90-300.
E) 50mm is a nice length for messing around with cheap macro photography options like $5 reversing rings or extension tubes. So you can play around with that with the same lens. In case you end up liking macro.
F) It's tiny and weighs like a couple of ounces, and you'll never regret carrying it. Makes for easy decisions!

I own no fewer than 3 cameras that have never had anything on them other than a 50mm lens (or the equivalent length in other camera sizes). They're useful little suckers.