\"L\" series lenes!

[eddylush]

Hi there,
Is the 70-200 2.8 push and pull?
I was thinking of buying my first "L" series lens to go on my 10D 100-400 or 35-350 or maybe the 70-200 are there any pros and cons I should be aware of?
Many thanks for any help Eddy

[rji2goleez]

Check out the reviews here:

http://www.photo.net/canon/#lense

and you can get additional info on these and others.

Bob

[Morden]

Is the 70-200 2.8 push and pull?
No, it isn't.

By the way, it is an excellent lens!

[fastbikerider]

Get the 70-200 2.8L. It is, in my humble opinion, the best CANON zoom lens on the market. The 100-400 is very soft in comparison. Havent used the 35-350, but the pure nature of this lens suggests that it cant possibly be of the same quality as the 70-200, plus the F-stops are no where near as fast.

Buy the 70-200 and you will know you have the best mid range telephoto lens on the market.

[brunz]

The 35-350 is a monster sizewise and I wouldn't get it if you have to carry it around. You'll hurt your back. The 70-200 is a very heavy lens but lighter than the 35-350 and can be handheld but still very heavy...but very sharp. I like the 70-200 L F4 if you don't need the f 2.8 speed. Much lighter and just as sharp not to mention the cost is 50% of the faster lens. Good luck

[kbhagat]

the 100-400 L with IS is really nice. I have it and I bought the 24 to 70 F2.8L too. Both are fine lenses and are a little heavy, but I'm ok with that.

I just took this yesterday with the 100-400

http://ee.bhagat.com/photo.php?photo=682&size=default&exhibition=8

[Jeppe]

brunz wrote:
The 35-350 is a monster sizewise and I wouldn't get it if you have to carry it around. You'll hurt your back. The 70-200 is a very heavy lens but lighter than the 35-350 and can be handheld but still very heavy

Hehe.. yes a mere 75 grams ;)

But as you say, the 4L version is just as sharp (yes, relly JUST as sharp) but one stop slower. But that means just a quick turn on the ISO-dial.

The 70-200/4L is great working with, since its almost ½ weight.

[John57]

I have a 10D and recently got a 70-200L 2.8 IS and a 35-350L.

I have taken alot of photos in a short time on these two lenses and for what it is worth my views are below...

As to which of these or indeed a 100-400 to buy depends on what exactly you are trying to take photos of and in what conditions.

Firstly - they are all expensive, well built and all very heavy!

The 70-200L 2.8 IS - it is a stunner. So sharp! It is quick, has IS and will work well with the 1.4x and 2x converters thereby giving you more flexibility.

The 35-350 doesn't have IS but will happily go down to '35mm'. People comment about it's lack of IS but used sensibly it's no different to a 'normal' zoom speed wise. It has surprised me at just how sharp it is considering all the negative comments on forums I have read (most - but admittedly not all - from people who don't own it!). I can see me being lazy and leaving this on the camera alot, it is very versatile. It is supposed to weigh less than the 70-200 but is balanced differently with the weight nearer to the camera body - this gives the impression it is a fair bit heavier! It is, however, shorter and marginally less noticeable than the 70-200 - at least until you zoom it when it gets a bit long! Personally I don't mind the push-pull zoom but i know others hate it.

I can't comment on the 100-400 other than saying when I tried one on the 10D it was big and heavy like the other 2 and again, has the push-pull design zoom. Most of the reviewers seem to love the lens though.

My choice would be the 70-200 as it gives you - potentially - the most options..... but that is subject - as I have said - to what you want out of it. I bought the two lenses I have to take very different types of photographs.

[eddylush]

Hi all,
Many thanks to you all what a great response!
Ok so im gonna decide by tomorrow, from what you guys say im now thinking of the 70-200 but which one (again) will I need the 2.8 is or will the 4 non is do bear in mind in the uk its a 1/3 of the price, but this is not a price related decision ive never had a is lens so im not to sure on what to expect, I suppose for my first "L" lens im looking for that (i hate to say it) all rounder, I want to take some portraits, some low key sports, and also for the holiday and family stuff! Will I need 2.8 and is?
Many thanks to all again!
Eddy

[CyberDyneSystems]

They are both great looking lenses.

The question is "Do you need" the extra aperture opening of the 2.8?

Even if you have the 2.8,.. my bet is 99% of the time you will be shooting stopped down to 4.0 or more. We know that lenses perform better stopped down a little.

I purchased a 2.8 specifically because I needed a zoom in that range for indoor photography in a theatre where light is at a premium and no flash can be used. With the 2.8 and the 10D's ISO settings I can get shots where it might be tricky with an f/4.0

But as I say I got the lens for that specific application.

If I were getting the lens for any other application that I personally would need,... I would have been more than happy wit the f/4.0

In fact ,.. to prove the point,. NONE of my other lenses... (except the good old 50mm f/1.8 :) ).... go down to f/2.8 Most of them start at 4.0

[miksmi]

Eddy, your related thread on robgalgraith.com is still active and receiving responses.

http://www.robgalbraith.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB8&Number=147541