{"id":13,"date":"2009-05-14T14:23:00","date_gmt":"2009-05-14T22:23:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/lightmanship.dreamhosters.com\/?p=13"},"modified":"2009-05-14T14:23:00","modified_gmt":"2009-05-14T22:23:00","slug":"canon-ef-35-350mm-f3-5-5-6l-usm-versus-canon-ef-70-200mm-f2-8-l-is-usm-a-visual","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.michaelgracemartin.com\/main\/canon-ef-35-350mm-f3-5-5-6l-usm-versus-canon-ef-70-200mm-f2-8-l-is-usm-a-visual\/","title":{"rendered":"Canon EF 35-350mm f\/3.5-5.6L USM versus Canon EF 70-200mm f\/2.8 L IS USM: A Visual"},"content":{"rendered":"

I recently purchased a Canon 35-350mm f\/3.5-5.6L USM zoom lens. (This lens was replaced by the Canon 28-300mm f\/3.5-5.6 L IS USM and is no longer in production.) Due to some of the complaints I heard, I was a little worried the size and weight of it might be a problem…especially over the course of a long day of shooting.<\/p>\n

Well, I haven’t used it during a long day of shooting yet; but I have used the Canon EF 70-200mm f\/2.8 L IS USM at some of my weddings and haven’t noticed any major problems with weight. So, just out of curiosity, I thought I would compare the two purely in terms of size and weight.<\/p>\n

First, I weighed both of them with their hoods and caps on. The 35-350 weighed in at a fairly substantial 3 pounds and 4.6 ounces. When handling them, it’s a little difficult to tell which is heavier because the weight is distributed differently. The 70-200 IS has a larger diameter and looks more substantial. And, as it turns out, it *is* somewhat heavier: 3 pounds and 8.3 ounces.<\/p>\n

So, the 70-200 is heavier even though it covers a smaller range of focal lengths. However the 70-200 has two attributes that make it especially heavy: 1) a relatively large and constant maximum aperture of f\/2.8, and 2) an image stabilization system.<\/p>\n

I took a few photos to further illustrate their differences in size. In the first photo, they’re standing upright on a table (the 70-200 is on the left; the 35-350 on the right):<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

As you can see, when the two lenses are not extended, the 70-200 is longer\/taller than the 35-350. How about when they’re fully extended?<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Actually, the 70-200 doesn’t extend when you zoom it out; so its length is unaltered (I know, I know…the 70-200 shows it’s at 70mm, not 200mm. Trust me: it’s the same length at 200mm). The 35-350, on the other hand, has now surpassed the length of the 70-200 (it’s a push-pull zoom like a couple of Canon’s other L zooms: 28-300 and 100-400)…and there’s a relatively large and heavy piece of lens glass inside that extended end.<\/p>\n

How about a photograph of the two with their hoods on?…<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

To the casual observer, they look like they’re almost the same length! I guess this is good as far as the 35-350 not making me “stand out” any more than the 70-200 does. However, much of the length on the far end of the 70-200 is lightweight plastic. The 35-350’s hood is quite a bit shorter.<\/p>\n

So, even though the 35-350 weighs less than the 70-200 IS, the weight distribution is quite different. I’m a little concerned that when the 35-350 is fully or nearly fully extended, it’ll act as a substantial lever with my upper back acting as the counterweight….possibly making it ache after a few hours of shooting.<\/p>\n

I guess the proof will be “in the pudding” once I actually shoot an event with it! More on that sometime soon…:-)<\/p>\n
\n\n \n \n \n <\/a>
\nVisit Michael's Art Photography Portfolio<\/a> at SaatchiArt.com!\n <\/td>\n <\/tr>\n <\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n
","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

I recently purchased a Canon 35-350mm f\/3.5-5.6L USM zoom lens. (This lens was replaced by the Canon 28-300mm f\/3.5-5.6 L …<\/p>\n

Continue reading »<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,15],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-13","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-all","category-reviews"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.michaelgracemartin.com\/main\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.michaelgracemartin.com\/main\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.michaelgracemartin.com\/main\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.michaelgracemartin.com\/main\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.michaelgracemartin.com\/main\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=13"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.michaelgracemartin.com\/main\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.michaelgracemartin.com\/main\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.michaelgracemartin.com\/main\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.michaelgracemartin.com\/main\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}