What is the difference between this lens and the 35 -100 f4 -5
351594
Speed of lens/allows more light in therefore can take pics in low light situation without a flash
351595
The HS35100 has a larger F stop (F2.8) which means it is a "faster" (or more light sensitive) lens. This is important with micro four thirds cameras, as the sensor is small and needs more light than a full frame sensor. The HS35100 is weather sealed, and may be better build quality than the 35-100/F4 lens. Both lenses have image stabilization, but I don't know how that feature compares between lenses. Know that the firmware for the HS35100 was updated last year, which fixed a "jitter" problem with that lens. It works quite well now. I hope this information is of some help to you.
351596
this lens is a fix aperture 2.8 lens with 18 elements in 13 groups with POWER O.I.S. (Optical Image Stabilizer), well-known for good quality and image; for 35-100 f4-5, the lens is 12 elements in 9 groups with aperture F4.0 (Wide) - F5.6 (Tele) more compact and for causal usage.
351597
Short answer: f2.8, superb optics, weatherproof. These were some of my considerations. I have a weatherproof camera and appreciate having the ability to shoot in low light on wet or snowy days when I want to!
351598
Although the focal length is the same, "H-HS35100" is bright lens, also it has a high degree of blur background.
351599
the aperture.. this lens has a 2.8 fstop usable throughout the zoom.. better in low light and for a shallower depth field thus the higher price.
351600
The HS35100 has a larger F stop (F2.8) which means it is a "faster" (or more light sensitive) lens. This is important with micro four thirds cameras, as the sensor is small and needs more light than a full frame sensor. The HS35100 is weather sealed, and may be better build quality than the 35-100/F4 lens. Both lenses have image stabilization, but I don't know how that feature compares between lenses. Know that the firmware for the HS35100 was updated last year, which fixed a "jitter" problem with that lens. It works quite well now. I hope this information is of some help to you. The HS35100 has a larger F stop (F2.8) which means it is a "faster" (or more light sensitive) lens. This is important with micro four thirds cameras, as the sensor is small and needs more light than a full frame sensor. The HS35100 is weather sealed, and may be better build quality than the 35-100/F4 lens. Both lenses have image stabilization, but I don't know how that feature compares between lenses. Know that the firmware for the HS35100 was updated last year, which fixed a "jitter" problem with that lens. It works quite well now. I hope this information is of some... » Read More The HS35100 has a larger F stop (F2.8) which means it is a "faster" (or more light sensitive) lens. This is important with micro four thirds cameras, as the sensor is small and needs more light than a full frame sensor. The HS35100 is weather sealed, and may be better build quality than the 35-100/F4 lens. Both lenses have image stabilization, but I don't know how that feature compares between lenses. Know that the firmware for the HS35100 was updated last year, which fixed a "jitter" problem with that lens. It works quite well now. I hope this information is of some help to you. « Show Less
351601
This lens performs better in low light. It also has a lower aperture which gives you a lower depth of field. I use this lens all the time for weddings/corporate events. Its the best MFT telephoto I know of.
1789856
Photographing a subject with a m4/3 camera and this lens at f/1.2 next to a 35mm DSLR and 85mm lens at f/1.2 will yield the same exposure at equivalent ISO. The only thing affected is the DOF, which performs as a 42.5mm lens would at f/1.2 on a 35mm camera.
1838718
M. Clouse, I have both the 35mm L lens and the 50mm non-L lens. Like you, I love the 50mm lens but it is not sharp wide open. It sharpens up pretty well in the center by f/2.8, but the corners are soft even at f/5.6. The 35mm L lens is not in the same league. It is almost 4 times as expensive, built like a tank, has a completely different lens formula, ring USM focusing system rather than the old design in the 50mm, and is sharp at f/1.4 even out to the edge of the field. Like the 50mm, it gets a little sharper stopped down, but it is so sharp at f/1.4, there is not much room for improvement. You will not be disappointed with the 35mm L. It is a very fine lens optically and mechanically. M. Clouse, I have both the 35mm L lens and the 50mm non-L lens. Like you, I love the 50mm lens but it is not sharp wide open. It sharpens up pretty well in the center by f/2.8, but the corners are soft even at f/5.6. The 35mm L lens is not in the same league. It is almost 4 times as expensive, built like a tank, has a completely different lens formula, ring USM focusing system rather than the old design in the 50mm, and is sharp at f/1.4 even out to the edge of the field. Like the 50mm, it gets a little sharper stopped down, but it is so sharp at f/1.4, there is not much room for... » Read More M. Clouse, I have both the 35mm L lens and the 50mm non-L lens. Like you, I love the 50mm lens but it is not sharp wide open. It sharpens up pretty well in the center by f/2.8, but the corners are soft even at f/5.6. The 35mm L lens is not in the same league. It is almost 4 times as expensive, built like a tank, has a completely different lens formula, ring USM focusing system rather than the old design in the 50mm, and is sharp at f/1.4 even out to the edge of the field. Like the 50mm, it gets a little sharper stopped down, but it is so sharp at f/1.4, there is not much room for improvement. You will not be disappointed with the 35mm L. It is a very fine lens optically and mechanically. « Show Less
1579847
I have both and the 85mm has a much better build quality, longer focal length, and more robust colors and image quality is significantly better. I rarely use my 50mm anymore. I keep it because of its low price and the resale value isn't worth it.
1316304
I owned the 300 f4 and replaced it with the 70-300 L which for me is a better alternative. The additional length makes a huge difference; I also owned the 70-200 F4, a wonderful lens but I find I no longer use since I have the 70-300L. There is NO comparison between the non-L version of 70-300 & the L version. This is a terrific lens & you will be happy with it.
123475
Good question. The difference is better optics at 1.4f stop, or wide open. If you shoot wide open all the time, then you might want to consider that extra expense. On the other hand, if you shoot occasionally wide open, this lens (400) is great and I have liked shooting with it.
1041292
I agree with the 35 F1.4 response. It is a very sharp lens and with the sale, it's priced great. WELL worth the $.
1838719
Yea, the 35 1.4 is very sharp and also a "cannot love without it" lens. Definitely worth it.
423082
The 18-105 is definitely the sharper lens. In my opinion, even at F4 throughout the entire range, you get amazing results. The 18-200, like most zooms, you have to really stop it down some to get the best results and the telephoto ends tends to get soft focus. It's a good all-in-one but definitely can notice the difference in performance and image quality especially in lower light situations.
1577239
If you are referring to the F2.8 versions of both lenses they are about the same size and weight and such the lower the f stop number it shows the larger the lense typically. (So wider it can open the larger the lense ). Small lenses will be ones that can't open less then 4.0 f stop any mid to high grade lense will be larger than the base lenses in size and weight that being said the lense I bought is notHeavy and is not bad the larger 70-300 f2.8 is very large and heavy enough I mount the tripod to the lense not the camer as to Much strain to the mounts between the camera and lense would cause damage over time. If you are referring to the F2.8 versions of both lenses they are about the same size and weight and such the lower the f stop number it shows the larger the lense typically. (So wider it can open the larger the lense ). Small lenses will be ones that can't open less then 4.0 f stop any mid to high grade lense will be larger than the base lenses in size and weight that being said the lense I bought is notHeavy and is not bad the larger 70-300 f2.8 is very large and heavy enough I mount the tripod to the lense not the camer as to Much strain to the mounts between the camera and lense... » Read More If you are referring to the F2.8 versions of both lenses they are about the same size and weight and such the lower the f stop number it shows the larger the lense typically. (So wider it can open the larger the lense ). Small lenses will be ones that can't open less then 4.0 f stop any mid to high grade lense will be larger than the base lenses in size and weight that being said the lense I bought is notHeavy and is not bad the larger 70-300 f2.8 is very large and heavy enough I mount the tripod to the lense not the camer as to Much strain to the mounts between the camera and lense would cause damage over time. « Show Less
1293198
The primary difference between the Canon EF 100 mm f /2.8L IS USM Macro Lens and the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro Lens is the IS. This refers to Image Stabilization. The IS in that lens is good to 4-stops (really probably 2 or 3) meaning it can compensate for the shake in the image from a longer exposure. This is a benefit for macro photography as it allows for a longer exposure with a smaller aperture, allowing for a greater depth of field in your image. You can search for macro photos on Google images and you will notice the small depth of field in most of the photos, which frames the subject well when used correctly, but when it is too small, only a small part of the subject will actually be in focus. Secondarily, the Canon EF 100 mm f /2.8L IS is a "L" or "Luxury" lens. Although partially a marketing gimmick by Canon, this means that the lens will be higher quality, have at least partial weather sealing, have a better outside lens coating, and generally be of higher build quality. As an owner of the less expensive of the two, and having used both, I would recommend buying the cheaper one if you just want to get started in macro photography, and maybe spend some money on extension tubes or a macro flash. If you are still curious about both these lens, I always recommend renting the lens in question before a purchase or going out and finding them in a photography store. I personally use lensrentals.com for my rentals, but there are several excellent renters on the web.
1746186
Yes, much better. Better optics, better sharpness and color transmission, better weather sealing. Heavier, and more conspicuous. You might consider the 100-400 IS L lens. I switched from that because I got tired of carrying it around. Which is a problem with a 400 mm IS prime. Good luck. JWK
709663
Well, there really isn't a BIG difference. I prefer the 35mm for the wider field of view. It's also less expensive than the 50mm. With the cropped sensor on your D3000 the 35mm will perform a lot like the 50mm would on a full frame camera. Speaking of which, if you plan to move to a full frame camera the 35mm likely wont be going with you as it's a DX only lens. The 50mm is a DX/FX lens so you can keep using it on full frame cameras.I think in general for your camera a 35mm would serve you better, but you wouldn't go wrong with the 50mm either. Try a rental shop or borrowlenses.com. Grab both lenses for a weekend trip and see which you use more. Shouldn't cost much for a three day rental. Well, there really isn't a BIG difference. I prefer the 35mm for the wider field of view. It's also less expensive than the 50mm. With the cropped sensor on your D3000 the 35mm will perform a lot like the 50mm would on a full frame camera. Speaking of which, if you plan to move to a full frame camera the 35mm likely wont be going with you as it's a DX only lens. The 50mm is a DX/FX lens so you can keep using it on full frame cameras.I think in general for your camera a 35mm would serve you better, but you wouldn't go wrong with the 50mm either. Try a rental shop or... » Read More Well, there really isn't a BIG difference. I prefer the 35mm for the wider field of view. It's also less expensive than the 50mm. With the cropped sensor on your D3000 the 35mm will perform a lot like the 50mm would on a full frame camera. Speaking of which, if you plan to move to a full frame camera the 35mm likely wont be going with you as it's a DX only lens. The 50mm is a DX/FX lens so you can keep using it on full frame cameras.I think in general for your camera a 35mm would serve you better, but you wouldn't go wrong with the 50mm either. Try a rental shop or borrowlenses.com. Grab both lenses for a weekend trip and see which you use more. Shouldn't cost much for a three day rental. « Show Less
1796676
It's more plasticy ten the 50mm 1.4. I got the 35mm bc I have the Canon 70D which cropped senor dslr. I like the 1.4 better for quality of shots in door but eith a cropped sensor it made the lense closer to 80mm. The 35mm is closer to 45mm on the crop sensor dslr
1050986
The lens itself is 4.5mm at wide and the listed 35mm equivelent field of view is 25mm.Sorry, N. Hoang; I didn't see that you had beat me to it.
624550
I have the 2.8L lens, and I love it, but I wish it had IS. In my opinion, the only real advantage of the 2.8 is its greater light gathering power, to shoot inside or in deep shadows. The f4 with the IS can do most everything you want, especially if you have a camera with a high ISO. I don't know of any differences in the glass.
1069237
Sharper by a discernible amount. Lighter! Faster focusing. 70-300 maintains a significant advantage in close focusing though. I have both lenses. If you want to shoot bugs and flowers, 70-300 is the way to go. Birds, sports, the moon, 75-300.