Question about canon L glass lenses purchase

[MediaMagic]

Alright, here goes. As I mentioned in another post, I ordered the 100-400L lens from a local dealer (they were out of stock). However, I just got a call from them saying to bring in my camera and check out a different canon lens they just got in and that it may serve my purpose better.. the lens they are speaking of is the 35-350L.

It's priced $93.00 higher than the 100-400L but one plus is that I already have a filter collection in 72mm, which the 35-350L uses, as opposed to the 77mm of the 100-400L. So I'd save the difference in cost by not having to purchase a new UV and CP filters right off the bat.

I am thinking that the 3.5 aperture on the 35-350 would be more versatile than the 4.5 of the 100-400 for lower light, but I doubt that the 3.5 would be available at 100mm focal length anyway. So in that respect the two lenses probably use about the same aperture minimums at equal focal lengths. So the wider aperture would only benefit me in wide angle tripod shots in low light, or maybe a little better background blur on shorter focal length portraits.

Both lenses are heavy as hell so a mono or tripod is surely necessary (at least for me) for clean shots on either.

The 100-400 has a minimum focus distance of almost 6 feet where the 35-350 is 2 ft.

I'm also wondering if I'd regret giving up that extra zoom in favor of the wide angle range, or if the difference of 50mm in zoom will really make that big of a difference in shooting sports/wildlife shots.

I just wish they had both lenses in the store so I could test them side by side. I suppose I could wait but considering the speed at which the L glass lenses are selling around here, I doubt the 35-350 will still be there in a week or so when the 100-400 arrives.

Do any of you L glass users have experience with both of these lenses to give some insight as to strengths and weaknesses of each? Thanks in advance for any insight.

David

[lightandlife]

Which lens professionals choose if only one had to be chosen? 100-400mm L (Shutterbug). It is one of the newest Canon lenses and a 4X zoom. The other is older and a 10X zoom. The newer embodies the extra knowledge Canon has accumulated by hiring younger researchers during the past few years. Even if both were created by the same team, 4X should give you sharper images. There is no comparison.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Don't forget that only th e100-400mm has IS of the two,.

The 35-350 is an oddity and a bit of a throwback. I'm sure it has it's uses,. and followeres,..but it is more in the same league as the 50-500mm Sigma,..

I have read literally hundreds of posts singing the praises of the 100-400mm IS,. As for the 35-350mm,. I have herd very little.

I would not put in the same class as the 100-400mm IS.

[MediaMagic]

Thanks guys... I think I just needed a reality check. I am such a nut over this 10D that the option of getting an L lens NOW rather than in a week was like teasing an alcoholic with a bottle of Glenlevit. Not that I photograph under the influence or anything. heh.

The 4x ratio and the IS option on the 100-400L make it a better choice for sports/wildlife (the main reasons for the purchase to begin with), even if I do have to go out and buy some patience.


Thanks again.

[deztoys]

I've been using the 35-350 since I got the 10D. I love the thing. its heavy and a real handfull to use, but I haven't seen anything that gives me the range better than this. if the weight is something you can deal with, I would recommend it. No IS though, so you may want to use a monopod more than you usually have. Just my 2 bits worth...

Several of the images on our pages are done with the 35-350. Check some of the ones under the San Diego gallery or the Mud Run photos. The Mud Run was all done with the 35-350.

www.pbase.com/snj

[John57]

I have both of these lenses and don't regret buying either of them.

Both lenses are optically very good. The 100-400 can produce stunningly sharp images. The 35-350 seems to be given a hard time, mostly by people who appear - in the main - to have never used it. I find it is very, very good and the images I have got from mine are sharp with good contrast and colour, etc. It is not as sharp at 350mm as the 100-400 but it is still very good and of course goes back to 35mm.

I use the 35-350 much more than the 100-400 purely because of it's range and versatility. No, there is no IS but on a reasonable day it makes no odds anyway. I find for everyday use it is hard to beat - the 100-400L starts on a 10D at effectively 160mm which is too much for many of the pictures I take. HOWEVER....

Which you buy should really depend on what you will be using it for - if you intend to use the 100-400 mainly at the 400mm end then stick with getting this lens. If you think you will want the flexibility of the 35-350 then consider it. You will not be disappointed with either. You mention sports and wildlife - if thats the case I would stick with waiting for a 100-400. One post suggests the 35-350 is not in the same league as the 100-400. Having and using both I would disagree with that view but for the use you appear to want it for there is only really one choice and thats the 100-400L.

[scottbergerphoto]

I have been using the 100-400 IS L for about 4 months and have taken about 600 pictures with it. It's a great lens, which requires alot of practice to hand hold. It takes great close up portraits at public events, without being too close to the subject. I usually carry the 16-35 f/2.8 L to complement it for wide angle shots. From what I've read here and the lens reviews at www.popphoto.com, If you expect a lens to cover too much of a range, it will usually do the ends of the range poorly. There are many examples of this lens's ability at my pbase account. Good Luck.
Scott