Suggestions on Lens

[robfo0]

Hi everyone,

Well, its time again to choose a new lens! I was hoping to get some suggestions/comments from others that have used these lenses.

I'm debating 3 different ones. The Canon 35-350 3.5-5.6 L, 70-200 2.8 L IS, and 24-70 2.8 L.

My current lenses are: 16-35 2.8 L, 100 2.8 Macro, 50 1.8. I use these lenses primarily on my 10D, but occassionaly shoot film with my Elan 7E. I was hoping to stay below 1400 (which the 70-200 breaks), but may consider going over if feedback suggests doing so. My currently line up doesn't include a zoom telephoto, or mid telephoto. I don't particularly shoot any one type (landscape or portrait), I seem to shoot all. So I guses I'm just looking for any comments on these lenses, particularly any bad things about them.

Thanks a lot!

[scottbergerphoto]

robfo0 wrote:
Hi everyone,

Well, its time again to choose a new lens! I was hoping to get some suggestions/comments from others that have used these lenses.

I'm debating 3 different ones. The Canon 35-350 3.5-5.6 L, 70-200 2.8 L IS, and 24-70 2.8 L.

My current lenses are: 16-35 2.8 L, 100 2.8 Macro, 50 1.8. I use these lenses primarily on my 10D, but occassionaly shoot film with my Elan 7E. I was hoping to stay below 1400 (which the 70-200 breaks), but may consider going over if feedback suggests doing so. My currently line up doesn't include a zoom telephoto, or mid telephoto. I don't particularly shoot any one type (landscape or portrait), I seem to shoot all. So I guses I'm just looking for any comments on these lenses, particularly any bad things about them.

Thanks a lot!
I use the 70-200 2.8L non IS, saved the $500; and the 24-70 2.8L. They are both great. If you do alot of studio type portraits, go for the 24-70. If you do more sports, wildlife and portraits from across the street, go for the 70-200. I've seen some great results with the 70-200 attached to the 1.4 Extender II. Both are money well spent. I don't have any experience with the 35-350. The 100-400 IS L is not as sharp as the 70-200 but is a great super zoom. I'm sure by tomorrow you'll get alot of opinions on this subject. Happy shopping!
Scott

[Canuck]

robfo0 wrote:
Hi everyone,

Well, its time again to choose a new lens! I was hoping to get some suggestions/comments from others that have used these lenses.

I'm debating 3 different ones. The Canon 35-350 3.5-5.6 L, 70-200 2.8 L IS, and 24-70 2.8 L.

My current lenses are: 16-35 2.8 L, 100 2.8 Macro, 50 1.8. I use these lenses primarily on my 10D, but occassionaly shoot film with my Elan 7E. I was hoping to stay below 1400 (which the 70-200 breaks), but may consider going over if feedback suggests doing so. My currently line up doesn't include a zoom telephoto, or mid telephoto. I don't particularly shoot any one type (landscape or portrait), I seem to shoot all. So I guses I'm just looking for any comments on these lenses, particularly any bad things about them.

Thanks a lot!

You can go with the 24-70 F2.8L for this reason...
1) fill in mid range and is really fast. I've got my eyes on that one too! This lens is also under $1400 if you include $40 rebate thru 31st Jan 04. It can also make for a great landscape lens, as I have seen people use the 17-40 F2.8L for landscape shots.

On the high end, in telephoto look into the Sigma 120-300 F2.8 EX for $1900 from B&H. I have this lens and it is a large lens but it delivers! It rocks! Check out topic #17977 on this forum and see 1 pics I have taken using the 120-300 Sigma lens. IMHO, this lens is more value for money than the Canon 70-200 L lens. That's just my opinion. Just be ye warned, it weighs 5.75 lbs (92 oz)! It's a really big 'un! The 105mm filters aren't cheap either. I spent $2179 on the lenses and filters, then $47.45 on shipping to bring the damage (chaaaaaaaaa-chinggggg) to $2226 and change. This was mid Aug, 03.
It first saw action in Wales. I have yet to see a mechanical fault in this Sigma lens other than it being heavy. It is very capable of delivering smashing pics in the right hands! Go see that topic I said up above. The moon was shot JPEG and was a crop of the moon and the rest is night sky. No mods other than trimming night sky around it. It is the size I took it at, Large, Fine setting, ISO 100. Tenby Pics looks like crap, as it is a monstroussly compressed JPEG. You can only dream what the real one looks like. I'm sure you can infer what it would look like w/ JPEG compression.

BTW, the Canon at 350 and F5.6 is slow, you can slam a 2x TC on the Sigma 120-300 and have a 600mm F5.6, or 960mm w 1.6x crop. The other way the Canon 70-200 gives you a 400mm at F5.6, or 640mm w/ 1.6x crop still F5.6. I can deal with a 600 F5.6, but not a 350 F5.6. It is up to you the end of the day.

Just a quick overview and half penny for the lot...had to cut back, 2 pence is way too much. Hope this gives you a better idea.

[robfo0]

Cool, thanks for the advice, but has anyone used the 35-350 L?

[slin100]

I haven't used the 35-350L, so take what I write as hearsay and with a grain of salt.

Don't get your hopes up with this lens. It may be an "L" lens but the 35-350L is going to be slaughtered by the 24-70 and the 70-200. Any zoom encompassing a 10X optical range is going to designed with a bunch of compromises. Read the "Zooms" section of this article (http://www.seittipaja.fi/data/Pontification/b_Photography/k_Lens_prices/a_Lens_prices.html).

[CyberDyneSystems]

I understand that the samrt choice is the 100-400mm L over the 35-350mm any day of the week.