Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Canon 70-200 F/2.8L Vs. F/2.8L Is Vs. 35-350...  
User currently offlineQantasA332 From Australia, joined Dec 2003, 1500 posts, RR: 25
Posted (10 years 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 6082 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!  Nuts

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?

[Edited 2004-08-26 01:23:17]

12 replies: All unread, jump to last
User currently offlineTimdegroot From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 3674 posts, RR: 64
Reply 1, posted (10 years 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 6027 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.


Alderman Exit
User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 732 posts, RR: 16
Reply 2, posted (10 years 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 6006 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.



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineQantasA332 From Australia, joined Dec 2003, 1500 posts, RR: 25
Reply 3, posted (10 years 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 6004 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?

Thanks again!

User currently offlineTWAMD-80 From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 1006 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (10 years 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 5976 times:

Speaking of the DO lenses, could someone explain to me what they are? Are they worth their price as opposed to L glass? I am looking to acquire a DSLR soon and I would appreciate any help.  Smile


Two A-4's, left ten o'clock level continue left turn!
User currently offlineJayDavis From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 2000 posts, RR: 16
Reply 5, posted (10 years 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 5976 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.........  Smile !! (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 !!


User currently offlineDehowie From Australia, joined Feb 2004, 1057 posts, RR: 33
Reply 6, posted (10 years 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 5973 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.

User currently offlineQantasA332 From Australia, joined Dec 2003, 1500 posts, RR: 25
Reply 7, posted (10 years 5 days ago) and read 5960 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!


User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 732 posts, RR: 16
Reply 8, posted (10 years 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 5941 times:

The 70-200 is 5.6 with the 2x convertor. I've never found single point AF a problem - indeed, on my D60 I always use single point with any lens as it improves AF speed.

Quality with the 2x is not quite up to the 100-400 at 400mm, but still good - probably better than the 35-350 for example. WIth the 1.4, quality is outstanding.

Agree with forgetting the 2gb card - even if you had the money, 2x 1gb cards would be a better choice.

Wide angle - cheap wide zooms are a mistake, they invariable suffer in quality. Consider a non-zoom wide angle - remember the zoom range only represents a few paces  Smile



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineDehowie From Australia, joined Feb 2004, 1057 posts, RR: 33
Reply 9, posted (10 years 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 5910 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.

User currently offlineCanberra From Denmark, joined Apr 2004, 310 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (10 years 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 5891 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  Smile

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 Big grin Bad pictures must have to do with the lens or camera, no way it could have something to do with us  Big thumbs up

Best regards and good luck, Michael

It takes courage to push things forward . . (Mo Mowlam)
User currently offlineQantasA332 From Australia, joined Dec 2003, 1500 posts, RR: 25
Reply 11, posted (10 years 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 5847 times:

Hmm, the IS is so tempting, I still think I'll have to go with that. I'm in the process of working out my budget, so we'll see... Big grin

Now the question remains: 2X or 1.4X converter? I guess the 2X would be more versatile YSSY-wise, but the latter is a better match-up with the 70-200, eh? Hmm...

Well, thanks SO much to everyone for their advice!! I'll be sure to let you guys know what I end up deciding on.


(I'm looking forward to meeting you too, Darren! I really want to get over to the airport more often, but I've been so busy...)

User currently offlineJayDavis From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 2000 posts, RR: 16
Reply 12, posted (10 years 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 5841 times:

I cannot stress to you enough to get all other thoughts out of your head and get the 70-200 f-2.8 with IS !!!! Don't even think about another lense until you get that one.

As for the converter, I have them both. I can't help you there.  Smile


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Canon 70-200 2.8L Is Versus NON Is posted Thu Jul 14 2005 03:40:56 by Mongorat
Canon 70-200 F2.8 +2x Vs 100-400 posted Wed Nov 30 2005 23:42:06 by Donder10
Sigma 70-200 F/2.8 EX Vs Canon 70-200 F/4L posted Fri Jul 22 2005 07:30:42 by DLKAPA
Canon 70-200 Vs 100-400 L Lens posted Sun Oct 13 2002 23:35:28 by Fly-K
70-200 F4 L Vs. 75-300 F4.5-5.6 I.S. posted Sat Mar 26 2005 01:01:50 by MartinairYYZ
70/200 L USM F/2.8 Vs 70/200 L USM F/4.0 posted Wed Mar 24 2004 10:47:10 by UTA_flyingHIGH
Anyone Shoot Canon 70-200 Is W/2x? posted Wed Feb 12 2003 23:40:31 by Planedoctor
Canon 70-200 L F4 Is USM posted Tue Dec 10 2002 16:34:45 by PRM
Canon 70-200 2.8 Is New? posted Tue Sep 4 2001 01:28:41 by Blackened
For Sale: Canon 70-200 F4L - $519.99 - US Only posted Thu May 4 2006 19:53:45 by VasanthD