\"L\" series lenes!

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

Check out the reviews here:

http://www.photo.net/c​anon/#lense

and you can get additional info on these and others.

Bob

No, it isn't.

By the way, it is an excellent lens!

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.

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

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 …size=default&ex​hibition=8

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.

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.

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

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

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

http://www.robgalbrait​h.com …&Board=UBB8&Num​ber=147541