Please make recommendation for ~300mm lens ... And a general lens for a 70D

[Maria]

I have a new 24-70mm f2.8 and want something to compliment it for the longer distances. I'm thinking something between 250-400 would be good but not sure which one(s) are 'better'. This would mostly be used for indoor/stage shooting with some outdoor of kids plays, concerts or playing etc. maybe something in the 55-300 range?

I also have a new 70D (just took it out of the box) ;). So also looking for a recommendation on a USM to use with it for video - something mid range that would be good for most situations.

All input welcome!

[Maria]

just to add a twist to things i just found a post were someone is selling all their Canon gear and switching brands - they have a 70-200 f/2.8 L (doesnt say II so likely the first version?), also a 5d Mark ii ...

Wondering how much different in quality the original version of lens is vs the ii and if i should consider it? would it be comparible to the Sigma?  I don't think this canon has IS???

also, is the 5d Mark ii worth looking at?  I just purchased the 70d but only a few days ago so can return 😉 IF concensus is that the 5d Mark ii is a better camera??? My want is camera that takes great still shots and helps my lenses be sharp and good i low light.

Based on the input on the above, what is a good price for the lens? what about for the camera?

[ebiggs1]

A lot of these questions are related to how you want to use your equipment.

For me and my situation, I will always choose a 5D Mk II or Mk III over any xxD camera. For you, however, may not see the increased performance offered by these cameras. You must decide but, yes, I would take the 5D Mk II instead of a 70 D every time!

Both versions of the 70-200mm f2.8 L have IS.

The combo of the 24-70mm f2.8 and the 70-200mm f2.8 are as good as it gets. There just is no where else to go. You will have the very top of the lens making art in these choices. They have price tags to go along with their high status.

A 5D Mk III and the 24-70mm f2.8L II and the 70-200mm f2.8 L II is the dream outfit with few, if any, peers.

From what you have stated so far I would not consider the 100-400mm. Very heavy, not as sharp and not as fast although a little cheaper.

[Maria]

how much different is the i from the ii?

when i google the lens there are some 70-200 L that do not list IS in the specs? 

[cicopo]

You are correct in the fact there is a 70-200 f2.8 which DOES NOT have IS & it's a bit lighter than the others.

Also note that 200 mm on a full frame body will seem much shorter than on a 1.6 crop body. There is a big difference in how deep you can crop the full frame image when compared to the crop body file.

[Dun1]

Maria,

      If you still have the option to return a camera you might consider returning it and opting for a Canon 5D Mark ii, or Canon 5D Markiii both are full framed cameras.  So your EF-S lenses will not couple with that body the 5 D bodies, or any of the 1Dxx bodies.

     The 70-200 mm 2.8 is available in non IS, of course IS if you intend to hand hold your camera and body.

     There are also several versions of the 70-200 2.8 lens. All the people that have and use the 70-200 2.8 mm IS version two state that is is sharper then the other versions.

     You remarked that when you focused with the 24-70 mm lens the images were not sharp, you might consider using back button focus, 

           Here is a link to how to set back button focus on Canon.

          http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2011/backbutton_af_article.shtml

      You can not or should not attempt to use IS settings on any camera mounted on a tri-pod, or mono-pod it causes the camera to attempt to search focus.

          If you continue to have focus problems, make sure you remove an filters on the lenses and then attempt to see if the filters might cause out of focus images also.

[ebiggs1]

"... how much different is the i from the ii?"

Night and day. And also between the Mk II and the Mk III.

It is highly desirable to keep your system balanced. That is no very high end on entry level stuff or vise versa.

There is little point buying a 1Dx and then putting a low quality "kit" lens on it. You get the idea, IMHO, as always.

In your case you have a upgraded body (70 D) and a top of the mark lens (24-70mm f2.8). This is good but your next choice should reflect the same ideology.

[cicopo]

I may be wrong but I think the question relates to the Mk 1 or Mk 2 versions of the 70-200 & not the 5D's.

[ebiggs1]

"I may be wrong but I think the question relates to the Mk 1 or Mk 2 versions of the 70-200 & not the 5D's."

Oh, you probably are correct, sir.  It's hard for this ole brain to switch gears sometimes, ah, most times.

So to clarify whichever way the question is aimed.

The difference between version 1 and 2 of the 24-70mm f2.8, not much.

The difference between version 1 and 2 of the 70-200mm f2.8, a little.

The difference between version 1 and 2 and 3 of the 5D series is night and day. They continually got better and better.

There is also a 70-200mm f4 IS L that is a pretty darn good lens. It is lighter and less costly.

[Maria]

Still waiting to hear back on the price of the 5d Mark ii. I have until Jan 4th to return to 70d body. So far I like it but discourage that the pics taken with it and the 24-70 f/2.8 lens are not sharp.

I know the 24-70 is made for full frame but thought it would work well with the 70d as it is a midrange camera. Plus would give me a little more range - up to 130ish.

If the 70-200 is the original version I'm going to pass - if anything I think I've learned that i should only get IS for that kind of zoom.

[ebiggs1]

Maria how does the 24-70mm f2.8 perform on your T1i?