Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Your Thoughts On The Canon 35/350 F/3.5-5.6L USM?  
User currently offlineUTA_flyingHIGH From Tunisia, joined Oct 2001, 6495 posts, RR: 50
Posted (10 years 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 6823 times:

I am impatiently waiting for my 20D to arrive, and I had initially thought of getting the 70/200 f/4.0L. However, it is a bit short for some of the airports I regularly visit, and I fear an extender would annihilate most of that f/4.0 advantage.
The 100/400 L IS USM is nice, but a bit too heavy for me.
The 35/350 L USM f/3.5-5.6 seems like the best compromise, do any of you own this lens ? your thoughts would be appreciated.

Regards,
Will


Fly to live, live to fly - Air France/KLM Flying Blue Platinum, BMI Diamond Club Gold, Emirates Skywards
10 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineTimdegroot From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 3674 posts, RR: 64
Reply 1, posted (10 years 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 6811 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Is the 100-400 much heavier?

Tim



Alderman Exit
User currently offlineRunway23 From US Minor Outlying Islands, joined Jan 2005, 2195 posts, RR: 35
Reply 2, posted (10 years 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 6797 times:

Will,

Stay away from the 35-350L it's by far the worst L zoom lens canon make. I still personally find the 100-400L is the best zoom lens for aviation photography. If you are tight for money you might want to check out the 50-500 or 100-500 which Sigma have, both producing acceptable results.

Tim


User currently offlineIL76 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2004, 2237 posts, RR: 48
Reply 3, posted (10 years 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 6753 times:

I think the 35-350 and 100-400 have the same kind of construction in terms of size and weight (same as the new 28-300). Personally I don't think it's heavy really...
BTW (Swiss) Tim, the 50-500 Sigma is even heavier!  Wink/being sarcastic
Cheers,
Eduard


User currently offlineRunway23 From US Minor Outlying Islands, joined Jan 2005, 2195 posts, RR: 35
Reply 4, posted (10 years 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 6733 times:

Eduard,

I know the Sigmas are heavier but if someone is too wimpy to carry a lens around then they are better to stay at home  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

I have to agree though the 100-400 may seem heavy but it really isn't and it is a great piece of glass.

Tim


User currently offlineChris78cpr From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 2820 posts, RR: 50
Reply 5, posted (10 years 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 6722 times:

The 35-350 is an old design that has been replaced by the 28-300. It is known as being fairly soft through the range but especially at 300-350! I would avoid the lens and get a 70-200F4 and 1.4x convertor or a 100-400!

Chris



5D2/7D/1D2(soon to be a 1Dx) 17-40L/24-105L/70-200F2.8L/100-400L/24F1.4LII/50F1.2L/85F1.2LII
User currently offlineTWAMD-80 From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 1006 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (10 years 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 6701 times:

Chris, how does the quality of the 70-200 + 2x compare to the quality of the 100-400? I'd assume that there'd be a decrease in quality but is it really that much?

Tim



Two A-4's, left ten o'clock level continue left turn!
User currently offlineChris78cpr From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 2820 posts, RR: 50
Reply 7, posted (10 years 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 6691 times:

I would personnally not use a 2x with a 70-200F4, and only use it on a 2.8, but still rarely at that! The 2x is designed for high quality optics found in the high end L series primes! It can be used on the 70-200 but you lose sharpness/contrast and quality. The 100-400 will be better quality as it has does not have another layer of glass to go through before the imaging sensor!

Chris



5D2/7D/1D2(soon to be a 1Dx) 17-40L/24-105L/70-200F2.8L/100-400L/24F1.4LII/50F1.2L/85F1.2LII
User currently offlineRunway23 From US Minor Outlying Islands, joined Jan 2005, 2195 posts, RR: 35
Reply 8, posted (10 years 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 6658 times:

Also you will loose focussing abilities on the 70-200 f/4 if you go for a 2x converter which makes you loose 2 f stops. The 1.4x works well though on the 70-200 f/4.

Tim


User currently offlineUTA_flyingHIGH From Tunisia, joined Oct 2001, 6495 posts, RR: 50
Reply 9, posted (10 years 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 6641 times:

Ha !
So it appears that the aforementioned 35/350 is a piece of crap...
So now the next question; 70/200 f/4.0 + 1.4x extender or the (rhaa, heavy) 100/400 ?
Many thanks for your replies btw.

Will



Fly to live, live to fly - Air France/KLM Flying Blue Platinum, BMI Diamond Club Gold, Emirates Skywards
User currently offlineTin67 From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 268 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (10 years 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 6599 times:

So now the next question; 70/200 f/4.0 + 1.4x extender or the (rhaa, heavy) 100/400 ?

If you're considering the 100-400 then I personally would pay a little more and go for the 70-200 f2.8 IS L. This will take both extenders.

I owned a 100-400 and the 70-200 f4 but sold them both. The 70-200 f4 is a lovely compact and light lens. Great for traveling and produces excellent results with the 1.4x extender. I thought the 100-400 was superb until I went digital and then I thought it was "just" good. I sold them both and bought the 70-200f2.8 and a prime 300mm.

The 70-200 f2.8 is a superb lens and with and without the 1.4x extender produces fantastic results. I tend not to use it with the 2x extender as I use the prime for this range, but with this combination it's pretty close to the 100-400.

The 70-200 f2.8 IS is heavier than the 100-400, but it really isn't a problem to hand hold either of them.

Regards
Martin



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...
Comments On The Canon EF 75-300mm F/4-5.6 III Usm? posted Thu Jul 25 2002 17:19:00 by OH-LZA
Your Thoughts On Watermarks And F/C Membership posted Sat Nov 4 2006 20:09:01 by BigPhilNYC
Your Thoughts On This Motive Rejection? posted Sun Aug 6 2006 08:29:49 by Futterman
Your Thoughts On These LAX Approach Shots? posted Mon Jul 10 2006 22:59:36 by Airplanenut
Your Thoughts On This Photo - And Viewer Behaviour posted Fri May 26 2006 18:16:46 by Psych
Experience With The Canon EF300 F4 L Is USM? posted Sat Feb 4 2006 16:31:30 by JK
Your Thoughts On A Quality Rejection posted Fri Dec 30 2005 12:21:13 by Psych
My Thoughts On The Sigma 80-400mm OS Lens (Nikon). posted Tue Dec 13 2005 21:49:48 by Yanqui67
Your Thoughts On This Please posted Sat Dec 10 2005 01:36:16 by AirImage
Your Thoughts On My Rejected Photo posted Tue Aug 16 2005 19:05:27 by A346Dude
Your Thoughts On Some Shots Please posted Wed Mar 21 2007 17:52:25 by PlymSpotter
Your Thoughts On A Proposal For Johan posted Sat Dec 9 2006 10:15:35 by Psych
Your Thoughts On Watermarks And F/C Membership posted Sat Nov 4 2006 20:09:01 by BigPhilNYC