UTA_flyingHIGH From Tunisia, joined Oct 2001, 6495 posts, RR: 52 Posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 4453 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
Runway23 From US Minor Outlying Islands, joined Jan 2005, 2038 posts, RR: 39 Reply 2, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 4427 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.
IL76 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2004, 2235 posts, RR: 51 Reply 3, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4383 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!
Cheers,
Eduard
Runway23 From US Minor Outlying Islands, joined Jan 2005, 2038 posts, RR: 39 Reply 4, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4363 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
I have to agree though the 100-400 may seem heavy but it really isn't and it is a great piece of glass.
Chris78cpr From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 2813 posts, RR: 52 Reply 5, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 4352 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The 35-350 is an old design that has been replaced by the 28-300.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
TWAMD-80 From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 1006 posts, RR: 4 Reply 6, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4331 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!
Chris78cpr From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 2813 posts, RR: 52 Reply 7, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4321 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
Runway23 From US Minor Outlying Islands, joined Jan 2005, 2038 posts, RR: 39 Reply 8, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 4288 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.
UTA_flyingHIGH From Tunisia, joined Oct 2001, 6495 posts, RR: 52 Reply 9, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 4271 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
Tin67 From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 266 posts, RR: 3 Reply 10, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 4229 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.
Sponsor Message: 
From Tunisia, joined Oct 2001, 6495 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 3674 posts, 
From US Minor Outlying Islands, joined Jan 2005, 2038 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 2813 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 1006 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
