HI. Iīm trying to decide between these two lenses (70-200 2.8L and 35-350 3.5-5.6), please I need an advice. With the same aperture setting, letīs say 11, will I see any diference in te developed picure between these two lenses?. I already have a 28-80 and a 75-300 but none of them are 2.8. Is there a real diference between 2.8 and 4 or 5.6 is it worth the money? Thank you.

pd: will the hi-sync speed feature of the 550EX work with the elanIIe?

-- Javier Boscolo (jboscolo@ciudad.com.ar), August 01, 2001

Answers

I've never conpared the two lenses you mention, but the 70-200 f/2.8L is a VERY good zoom lens, and the the 35-350 L is good primarily because it has such a wide range and still delivers decent sharpness. While it is probably the best 10X zoom made today, no one is saying that it's image quality is as good as the 70-200 L. In fact most users report that the 35-350 gets just a bit soft at the long end. Perhaps others can give you a better perspective than I can though.

High speed sync with the 550EX and Elan IIe work fine.

-- Jim Strutz (j.strutz@gci.net), August 01, 2001.

Here's something else to consider: the 70-200 2.8L plus a teleconverter.

-1.4x: 100 - 280 at a very reasonable f4 and very good image quality.

-2x: 140 - 400 at a still AFable 5.6 - even if you go soft towards 400 it's probably comparable to the reported slight softness with the 350 -- and still very good image quality (I'm speculating on how soft, but I've heard the 70-200 2.8 L performs quite well even with the 2x converter.)

If you go with either converter you're adding $350 or so to the price, but you can use the converter with other L tele and telezoom lenses, so you spread the cost if you already have or will have another long lens in your system.

The 70-200 2.8L plus teleconverter would give you the flexibility of exceptionally outstanding image quality and speed at moderate telephoto plus the reach of a longer lens when needed -- still at decent speed and very high image quality.

-- Rod Nygaard (rod.nygaard@boeing.com), August 02, 2001.

I already have a 28-80 and a 75-300 but none of them are 2.8. Is there a real diference between 2.8 and 4 or 5.6 is it worth the money?

There certainly is a difference between 2.8 and 4 or 5, but maybe not if you're shooting at f11 all the time. For portraits, you can't beat an f2.8 lens wide open, with the blurred background. But if all you want to do is landscapes, or use relatively fast film at f11 all the time, you probably wouldn't see a difference. I must admit that I haven't used the 35-350, but I have owned a 70-200/2.8 for the past year, and am very pleased with it.

-- Geoff Doane (geoff_doane@cbc.ca), August 03, 2001.

Thank you very much for your answers, they were very usefull. Both lenses are white, is there a practical reason for that. They have an "L" after the aperture values (I think thatīs because itīs the professional line of lenses),is there an optical diference with a "black" one?,is it important?. As you see itīs not easy to decide, thank you.

-- Javier Boscolo (jboscolo@ciudad.com.ar), August 03, 2001.

Canon paints most of their large lenses white (Isn't it light gray actually?) to reflect heat from sun light which could distort the lens barrel slightly. At least that's the story that's passed around. Nikon doesn't seem to buy the argument though & there glass seems to be pretty decent without it.

"L" lenses are Canon's high end line. Supposedly it stands for "Luxury." I'm not sure that's true though. Almost all of them have special optics in them. Either LD glass, flourite crystals or aspherics.

Personally, it all seems like white and "L" lenses are just marketing schemes to differentiate high end Canon lenses from the competition and from their own low end line.

-- Jim Strutz (j.strutz@gci.net), August 04, 2001.

"I already have a 28-80 and a 75-300 but none of them are 2.8. Is there a real diference between 2.8 and 4 or 5.6 is it worth the money?"

Well, the larger aperture cost more, but the big difference is the quality. When I switched from Canon FD to Canon EOS I started with the 28-80, and then added the 75-300 IS. I was never really happy with either lens. I replaced the 28-80 with the 24-85 last year, and have no complaints about that lens. Even though the 28-80 isn't as bad as a lot of people say, it isn't very good either. The image quality is much higher with the 24-85. I just replaced the 75-300 IS with the 300 f4L IS. While the difference between the 28-80 and the 24-85 was noticeable, the difference between the 300 f4L and any of the other lenses is amazing. I have only had it for 2 days, so I have only done very limited testing. I can say that it is much sharper wide open @ f4 than the 75-300 was @ f11 though. This lens might even be sharper @ f4 than my old FD 50mm f1.8 was @ f5.6.

As for the difference between f2.8 and f4 or f5.6, look at it this way. For the f5.6 zooms to be reasonably sharp you need to shoot them at about f11. My 300mm lens is very sharp @ f4. This is like getting the same shutter speed with 100 ISO film that it would take you 800 ISO to get. With the f2.8 zoom you get an extra stop of exposure beyond that, so even if you only stopped down to f8 you would still have the same 3 stop differce in usable shutter or film speeds. Of course the L lenses are sharper stopped down too, but they are sharper wide open than the consumer zooms are at thier sharpest. And if price is important to you, the 70-200 f4L is a bargain these days with the $100 rebate.

As for the 550EX flash with the Elan IIe, I found it to be a better match than the 380EX, and of course it can do everything the 380EX could and then some. It is a little big and heavy, but you get used to it.

-- Brad Hutcheson (bhutcheson@iname.com), August 05, 2001.

Brad is right on all counts (IMHO)!

In addition, the expensive glass (fluorite, etc.) & multicoatings not only increase lens sharpness but contrast as well. There's much more "snap" when you reach the pro series lenses. The R&D and precision manufacturing expenditures that get passed on with the purchase of these lenses are generally well worth it (if you can afford them in the first place)! You also get lenses that were purposely created to withstand more abuse than any consumer lens.

One caveat: Shooting an L series lens wide open (i.e. f/2.8) MAY not provide as sharp an image as a much less expensive lens stopped way down. But what you are paying for is better design, overall better image quality, ruggedness, depth of field control & the ability to shoot at higher shutter speeds or in lower light. If the type of photography you enjoy doesn't require any of this, then you've got a monumental waste of money, plus a truly big & heavy lens to lug around. Always consider your needs before making a purchase.

If cost is an issue (when isn't it?), then seriously consider the 70- 200 f/4L or even the 100-300 L series lenses. The latter is getting long in the tooth, with engineering (no USM, FTM, etc.) but both have seriously good glass in them! The best thing to do is put some film through your camera with each lens you are considering attached, and see which lenses satisfy your needs at the right price.

If cost is not so much an issue, and I can further confuse your decision making...have you seen the posts on this forum concerning the newly announced EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM? :) Heh, heh, this thing seriously has many of us drooling for a glimpse! Consider an Image Stabilized lens 70-200mm f/2.8 that can become a 140-400mm f/5.6 IS!

PS Back to your original question. :) I'm somewhat confused by what your needs are. You already have a 28-80 & a 75-300. Are you planning to upgrade your optics one piece at a time, starting with the telephoto zoom -- or are you wanting to abandon the standard 2 zoom setup in favor of having just one (albeit big & heavy) lens to carry on your Elan II all the time? The "do all" 35-350mm is a wonderous piece of engineering, but of course sacrifices needed to be made in its design. You will get more distortion, vignetting, softness, etc. with a superzoom like this than with smaller zoom ratio lenses. You also give up some of the wide angle (huge difference between 24/28/35mm perspectives). You gain convenience of not having to switch lenses. I'm truly curious why choices came down between the 70- 200 & the 35-350! The more common debate is between the 70-200 with TCs & the 100-400 IS. What kind of shooting do you like to do?

-- Hung James Wasson (HJWasson@aol.com), August 10, 2001.

H. James Wasson,:

I can understand why youīre curious about my doubts between the two lenses. Iīll try to explain: on March I went to Austraia and of course I took the elan with me. I got so tired of changin the lenses all the time (28-80 & 75-300)that I decided to look for a lens that could give me all in one. But on the other hand I always wanted to switch from 3 or 5.6 lenses to the 2.8 "line of lenses". So my choice is not bettwen the lenses but between having all the lenses in one (35-350) or getting to a higher level and getting a 2.8 lens. The type of photography I like includes portraits, landescapes, and sometimes the need for high shutter speeds (for airplanes photos). So thatīs my dilema. Thank you for the answers andīll apreciate more of them. Pd: I hope you understand my english.

-- Javier Boscolo (jboscolo@ciudad.com.ar), August 10, 2001.

Javier,

Your English is better than mine! :) Thank you for the clarification of your lens delima! Although the desire for an ultimate "do all" lens is very understandable, and the Canon 35-350mm f/3.5-5.6L comes closer than most to that goal -- I think the general consensus that you will get is that you will get the very best quality from the f/2.8 series of pro zoom lenses. You won't get that extreme focal range, but you gain in lower distortion/sharper/more contrasty precision optics, fast focusing AF, brighter viewscreen image, more depth of field choice & greater versatility (when coupled with high quality TC's).

Imagine being able to handhold a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM with 1.4x or 2x teleconverter and still be able to get sharp pictures of SU-27's or F-14's doing high speed low level flybys at the next airshow! Of course, the very best optics still belong to the prime lens crowd (by a rather slight margin) -- but I can't see you running fast enough or switching prime lenses fast enough to recompose a picture of an airplane in flight! ;)

-- Hung James Wasson (HJWasson@aol.com), August 11, 2001.

Of course, you could always working on increasing your stock of f/2.8 lenses -- and still get a "do all" superzoom for when convenience is simply more important than optical quality. You might consider the 3rd party makers, which might offer such lenses at less expense. I've heard that Sigma makes a 50-500mm EX HSM lens, and others may make something more similar to Canon's 35-350mm. Heck, while we're dreaming, you can get both of your Canon lens choices (but get the 70- 200mm IS first, [in another year or so, you might see an IS version of the 35-350mm -- it'd certainly make sense] heh, heh)!

-- Hung James Wasson (HJWasson@aol.com), August 11, 2001.

Javier - I use a 35-350 L Canon lens a lot. Check out my website where I have put a short user report with some pix. There are also some pictures throughout the site taken with the 35-350, all identified so you'll know which ones. For landscape and travel use it is a great lens. Try here http://www.john.macpherson.btinternet.co.uk/homepage.html Good luck. JOHN

-- %00 (john.macpherson@btinternet.com), September 09, 2001.