QantasA332 From Australia, joined exactly 10 years ago today! , 1500 posts, RR: 34 Posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 5204 times:
I know they're different lenses, but: between the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L, the 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS, and the 35-350mm f/3.5-5.6L, which would you get?
I'm looking around for a new camera and lenses, and have gotten a bit of a budget increase. I was originally going to go for the 70-200 f/2.8L, but figured it might be worth the extra money to get one of the other two lenses I mentioned. For the money, is it worth it? Is the 35-350 an excellent lens and, with it's smaller max aperture, is it fast enough for good low-light shots? Is IS for the 70-200 worth that much more? Does the wide angle end of the 35-350 suffice for good close-ups, ramp shots, flight decks, etc.? Would I need to get a wider-angle lens to complement one of the above? So many questions!
Thanks for the help!
*Edit: one more thing: does the 35-350 work well with Canon's 1.4X teleconverter? Is it compatible at all?
Timdegroot From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 3674 posts, RR: 66 Reply 1, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 5149 times:
if you can afford it get the 70-200 L IS, otherwise get the 70-200 without IS if you think you don't need IS (well who doesn't need IS).
I wouldn't go for the 35-350 as it is generally considered to produce lesser quality images for an L lens, most likely especially bad when compared to the best zoom in Canon's lineup that you are considering.
I addition to that, you mention the great flexibility of the 35-350, and while that may be true I know I wouldn't want to go rampshooting with a huge lense like that or taking cabin shots etc.
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 660 posts, RR: 17 Reply 2, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 5128 times:
Agreed, the 70-200 f2.8LIS is the best of these. 35-350 the worst. If you need the wideangle, look to a separate lens - good primes in the 28mm - 35mm aren't expensive. I think the 35-350 has been discontinued anyway (though doubtless there are still some available) replaced by the new DO lenses.
QantasA332 From Australia, joined exactly 10 years ago today! , 1500 posts, RR: 34 Reply 3, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks ago) and read 5126 times:
Thanks for that, guys! Looks like I'll be nixing the 35-350.
70-200 L IS would be great, and as it stands now I can just afford it. I'm torn, though, because it would probably mean either not getting a battery grip or downgrading to a 1 gig rather than 2 gig CF card - and I'd have to get an additional, wide(r)-angle lens. Any recommendations for good, 18-55mm-like wide-angle lenses?
JayDavis From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 2000 posts, RR: 17 Reply 5, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 5098 times:
To heck with a 2 gig CF card, go for the BEST glass you can possibly afford. This is the advice the world famous photographer Joe Pries would give you, so I am saving him the trouble......... !! (you're welcome Joe!!) If you are "that close" to purchasing the IS one, go for it, you can always get more CF cards.........
Seriously, I have the 70-200 f-2.8 and I really love it, BUT, I went to a sporting events camera show and tried out the IS model. Man oh man do I want one of those! It was amazing how you could focus on something, then slowly and gently turn on the IS and you could see the "TACK SHARP" focusing that the IS provides............you won't regret it, I promise.
That is what I'm going to buy for my next purchase. I'll eventually sell my trustly and reliable 70-200 f-2.8...........the IS rocks !!
Dehowie From Australia, joined Feb 2004, 1051 posts, RR: 36 Reply 6, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 5095 times:
All of the above advise is excellent however a couple of questions.
If you can afford the 70-200 2.8 IS and will be shooting at Syd then you may find the 100-400L to be a more flexible lens for a slightly cheaper price when starting out.
At Syd the 200-400 end allows some great close ups not possible with the 70-200 which is ideal over the the tower and along the fence.
If you are buying do NOT buy from an Aussie shop as you will get shafted to the value of 1500 dollars on the 70-200.
I paid 2400 about 5 months ago for one from a great dealer based out of Melbourne which felt more reassuring than buying Hong Kong direct.
For a wide angle you cannot go wrong with a 17-40 which is still Canon's best wide angle zoom dollar for dollar by a fair margin.One stop slower than the 16-25,half the price and a fair bit less distortion where it matters at 17mm.
Another wide option several people here use is the 28-105,not L quality but a useful cheap lens until you can upgrade.
QantasA332 From Australia, joined exactly 10 years ago today! , 1500 posts, RR: 34 Reply 7, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 5082 times:
Thanks for the additional tips, guys! Looks like the 70-200 f/2.8L IS might just be the way to go...
As for switching to the 100-400 instead...hmmm... I'm hesitant to get it because it doesn't zoom 'out' as wide as the 70-200, but do you really think the latter would be pretty much useless at YSSY (I would definitely get the Canon 1.4X teleconverter - or maybe even 2.0X? - to complement)? Too many choices!!
Actually, could the 70-200 f/2.8L IS be paired with a 2X teleconverter to equal the 100-400L IS in quality/ability? What is the 70-200's max. aperture with the 2X teleconverter, at 400mm? Is the inability to us multi-point autofocus a major disadvantage to using the 2X converter with the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS? Would the 70-200 f/2.8L IS and 1.4X teleconverter be good for YSSY spots (the tower mound, e.g.)?
Regarding a wider-angle lens to complement all of this: are there any decent/good lenses a bit cheaper than the 17-40?
Sorry, the above is quite a jumble, but I'm just trying to put everything out there. Thanks again to everyone for all the help!
Dehowie From Australia, joined Feb 2004, 1051 posts, RR: 36 Reply 9, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 5032 times:
As Colin has said and proven with his photo's you can get some excellent shots from the 2x with the 70-200 2.8 combo.
Given how good it is the 17-40 represents great value for money but you can also get some good value primes for your money as CKW said.
For Sydney the 70-200 with a 1.4 would cover 80% of the stuff you will shoot.
The only exceptions hee being T/O shots of 25 from Barton Park and real close ups from the tower and the deck.
Look forward to seeing you over the airport.
Canberra From Denmark, joined Apr 2004, 310 posts, RR: 4 Reply 10, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 5013 times:
Afraid I can't help you yet, but some of these guys in this forum convinced me to buy a 70-200 F2.8L IS with the 2x converter instead of the 100-400. It is in customs in Tel Aviv at the moment expecting to get it released on Monday!! Can't wait.
Go for the 70-200 IS, as it would be the first choice in that range almost no matter what else you get. If you go for the 100-400 or 35-350 you will probably always want to upgrade to something better. With the 70-200 you will probably also want more, but then we talk supply not upgrade. Don't think the 70-200 will get redundant in a collection as easy as the 100-400 or 35-350. Hope it makes sense, in Danish it would
Another reason for you to get the 70-200 is that if it turns out bad, we can team up and beat the hell out of the veterans here Bad pictures must have to do with the lens or camera, no way it could have something to do with us
Best regards and good luck, Michael
It takes courage to push things forward . . (Mo Mowlam)