100-400...or 35-350....or 70-200..???

[rbbblues]

awaiting my 1DS-2.(currently have a 10D0.....which L telephoto will be the best choice?...hear very little about the 35-350...someone please advise........

Please visit:

[pcasciola]

It all depends on what your needs are. Each of those lenses are the best at something. If you need a one size fits all lens and are willing to sacrifice some image quality, the 35-350mm would be the best. If you need the reach of a 400mm along with IS, then the 100-400mm would be best. If you the sharpest, fastest telephoto zoom, and 200mm is enough for you, then the 70-200mm f/2.8L would be best. You can also add a 1.4x TC to the 70-200mm f/2.8L which would make it roughly a 100-300 f/4, but then you might also want to consider the IS version.

Also, don't forget, going from a 10D to a full frame 1Ds Mk II, you probably got used to the 1.6x-factor, so what you know as 300mm today is going to appear roughly like a 200mm on the full frame camera. So keep that in mind when you figure out what zoom range you need.

[MDJAK]

I have a 20d (wish it was a 1d) and just bought the 28-135 IS to add to my 70-200 2.8 IS.
I also recently bought the 1.4 teleconverter, but haven't used it much. In addition, I have the semi-wide angle covered with the 17-40.

Here's my query: I have money burning a hole in my pocket. I've been thinking of getting the 100-400 IS, though I wasn't that crazy with the push-pull design. That aside, I can probably get used to that. Do you think that lens at this point, considering what I have, is a good choice? I do want a longer zoom that the 70-200 and can't afford a 300 fixed lens.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Most people want a lens that excels at a given purpose,. and hopefully is still flexible enough to be very good in many uses.

This describes quite well the 70-200mm lenses and the 100-400mm

The 35- 350 is VERY flexible,. but it does not "excel" at much other than that flexibility. This is part of why you here so little about it. (plus it has now been replaced by the 28-300mmL IS)

Trying to get one lens to do it all is ONLY the correct choice if factors are at work to force one to limit themselves to a single lens.

Otherwise.. you will get better results from lenses that are more specific in there focal range.

I think your intuition regarding the 100-400mm is a good one. You will not be disappointed :) ;)

Hope this helps

[TammieO]

I too thought the push/pull design of the 100-400mmL IS strange until I got to try it out all day at the zoo. It was no problem getting used to zooming with it and in fact I liked it.

[MDJAK]

Thanks Cyber and Tammie for the response.

Maybe I need to frame my question more succinctly. Already owning the 70-200 and a 1.4 teleconverter, am I duplicating my focal lengths if I get the 100-400? There are times such as at sporting events where I always long for a longer zoom.

[cecilc]

I've had the 100-400 for about a year now and have always enjoyed shooting with it. It has the reach I need for lacrosse, baseball, and other field sports - field sports that are played in the daytime ....

This is not a low-light lens .... it's listed as a 4.5-5.6 and it's only a 4.5 when you're shooting at 100mm. For every other focal length it's a 5.6 lens - it's just a little too slow to stop sports action in low light or under stadium lights (and I've tried!).

Great lens, though - I doubt that I'll ever get rid of it .....

[khiromu]

Those are all different lenses. I personally have or used to have all of three and here are my thoughts.

70-200IS... you probably get the best image quality from this one. Very sharp from wide open. A little heavier than 35-350, may be a little, too than 100-400. IS works very good. If you don't need over 200mm very often, I recommend this one with 1.4TC for occasional need over 200.

100-400IS... Very good for wildlife or bird photo. IS works good but not as good as 70-200IS (it's newer version IS). It is VERY good for birds in flight because you can catch a bird using 100 end, then within a second, you can zoom in to 400. With 400 prime it may be a little bit tough to catch flighing birds in your view finder.

35-350... It is very useful lens. The power of going back to 35mm is fantastic when you are shooting film or full size. I used it with film body, but with 1.6 crop factor, it's not as useful as with 1.3 or full size. You will get good images if you stop down a little bit. It is small compare to the other two, but still in the same ballpark weight-wise.

So what do I recommend? It depends on for what you are going to use.

For MDJAK,
I once had both 70-200 and 100-400, but whenever I use 100-400, I was at 400mm end, so I replaced it with 400/5.6, and feel much happier now. It doesn't have IS, but if you don't mind using tripod, you will probably get sharper images out from it.

[ScottE]

MDJAK, I have almost the same lenses as you, 17-40, 28-135 and 70-200 (non IS). I had a 400/5.6 lens that gave good results, but wanted more length and a zoom for more flexibility for wildlife photography where distances can change often and quickly. (I was going on a trip to Africa where you have to stay in the vehicle and want to shoot everything from elephants close to the vehicle to small birds off in the bush and don't want to be spending your time changing lenses while the subjects walk or fly away.)

I compared the Canon 100-400 IS and Sigma 50-500 lenses. Image quality is similar, with maybe a slight edge going to the 50-500 at the long end and to the 100-400 at the short end. Any difference was so small it wouldn't matter in real world photos. The advantage of the 100-400 is image stabilization. The advantage of the 50-500 is longer focal length. Since I always use a tripod for telephoto shots I chose the 50-500 for the longer focal length. I have occasionally regretted the choice when I had to shoot hand held, but most of the time I have been happy to have the 500 mm.

If I was making the same choice again I would also look at the new Tamron 200-500, but I believe it does not have full time manual focus so that would count against it unless it had clearly superior optics.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Cecil,

I have both the 100-400mm and the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS

I have the 70-200 only for those times when I need the faster aperture and can live without the added range. Otherwise I far prefer the focal range and lighter weight of the 100-400mm.

[Kenski]

I love my 100-400 and my 70-200.... I would not give them up for ANYTHING... Don't try to use the 100-400 in low light with AUTO FOCUS... :) It will HUNT alot...

[aikidoforever]

The 100-400 L IS USM is a very nice lens. Rugged, sharp and relatively light. Like anything, with a little practice you will get use to the push pull design. I actually like this design for such a long zoom. The only complaint would be the friction ring is too close to the manual focus ring. I can't seem to adjust the friction without affecting the focus. But that's a very small issue...

Zigga zigga zigga, oiy oiy oiy! ;-)

[GeForceFX]

would the 100-400mmL be fast enough for shooting racing cars?
or would the 70-200mm F2.8L be better?
if the F5.6 is fast enough, the extra zoom would be nice, but I must be able to use the fast shutterspeeds.
and how important is the IS with those fast shutterspeeds? (handheld)

and @ aikidoforever: what is a friction ring?

[CyberDyneSystems]

There are a few 100-400mm/70-200mm f/2.8 owners on this forum who shoot racing almost exclusively.

Some of them do use the 100-400mm a lot..

[Kenski]

I haven't had my 100-400 long enough for racing yet but with practice, this is what I plan on using it for, It is going to be a GREAT lens for awesome panning shots. The 70-200 will be even better if I get a chance to get closer.

[MDJAK]

You've all been quite helpful (and I didn't even start this thread). I have learned a lot in the short time I've been on this forum.

One thing I wanted to mention that I discovered today (that I'm sure you all already knew). I was going into Manhattan today, and always bring my camera just in case. Last time I didn't have it, a yellow taxi burst in flames right in front of me and my family as we were walking up Central Park West near the Dakota (Where John Lennon lived and died).

That's one reason I got the 28-135, to have a nice varied focal length and a lightweight lens to carry around. Well, having recently gotten the 1.4 teleconverter, I figured I'd make the 28-135 slightly longer in range. No goodnik. Didn't fit. I thought it worked with all lenses except wide angle, and for those I just thought it would do funny things to the resulting pictures, not not work at all. Live and learn.

[Adam Hicks]

Well it's a little late for $.02, but since I shoot 95% in the bright sunlight, and didn't need a long zoom lens when it's dim (I have the 50mm and 28-75 2.8 for that) I went with the 100-400. I'm shooting F7.1-F8 for image quality and good DOF anyways, so f5.6 doesn't bother me one bit. I'm sure I'll never rid the 100-400 until they release a 100-400 f4 DO constant (more realistic for size issues) or a 2.8 :)

To get the same range on the 70-200, and to get IS, you'll spend a fair amount more than the 100-400 (after you add a 2x), you'll end up with a 5.6 lens when using a 2x, you'll lose image quality with the 2x tc, and you'll lose 40mm on the 'wide' end. So for whatever that's worth, if you don't need the f2.8 ability, the 100-400L can't be beat IMO.

[aikidoforever]

Hey GeforceFX,

The friction ring is used to make the pull-push movement lighter or heavier. So, with the friction on the lightest, if you were to tip the camera down towards the ground, the lens would slide to it's maximum focal length (400mm). Canon designed it this way so that you could tip the camera up or down without the zoom moving back or forth.

Regarding using this lens for sport car racing, do a search for the member named RMFsports (I think). He's a cool guy that uses this lens quite a bit with incredible results. He's a very talented person. Some of his photos were the clincher in the decision to purchase this lens myself.

Good luck! ;-)

[robertwgross]

That's one reason I got the 28-135, to have a nice varied focal length and a lightweight lens to carry around. Well, having recently gotten the 1.4 teleconverter, I figured I'd make the 28-135 slightly longer in range. No goodnik. Didn't fit. I thought it worked with all lenses except wide angle, and for those I just thought it would do funny things to the resulting pictures, not not work at all. Live and learn.

Was this the Canon 1.4x ? I believe it only works with long L lenses.

There are several non-Canons that will work with any EF lens.

---Bob Gross---

[pcasciola]

Was this the Canon 1.4x ? I believe it only works with long L lenses.

There are several non-Canons that will work with any EF lens.
Robert is right. According to Canon, their 1.4x only works with the 70-200, 100-400 and all primes from 135mm up. I believe if you try a wider angle than those, you risk having the rear element come in contact with the front of the extender.

[CyberDyneSystems]

No one reads the Sticky :(

[Adam Hicks]

Stickys are Soooo overrated. :p

[MDJAK]

yes, indeed, it is the canon 1.4.

For some reason, I can't bring myself to buy other than canon brand lenses.

I was once going to get a Sigma, and I know nothing about them so I am in no way putting them down, but the build quality outside and the feel of the controls just didn't seem to be the same quality. I'm a firm believer that, if you know what you're doing, you usually get what you pay for.

[Jon]

Stickys are Soooo overrated. :p
Except when they already have the answer to your question . . .

[alan sh]

Anyone thought about the 90-300 USM lens ? Is it any good ?

Alan

[blackviolet]

alan sh - i've used my wife's 90-300 on a few trips and found it to be soft and too slow to focus. the colour rendition and saturation were, um, yucky...

i could take some shots to compare it @ 280mm to the 80-200L plus Tamron sp 1.4 ex or a bigma. i don't have any of the 70-200's to compare it to.

oh yeah, and i read the stickies...