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!

[ebiggs1]

"...  pics are not sharp and not sure why ..."

You are talking the Canon 24-70mm f2.8 II L?  This lens is scary sharp!

[Dun1]

If you goal is to shoot indoor stage events, the 70-200 mm 2.8 is a quality lens should give you the ability to take great sharp photos.  If you budget is limited and you still yearn for a longer lens or true 300 mm, or beyond, you might take a look at the Canon 100-400 lens, it is a different lens from the 70-200 lens in that you slide to move from 100 to increase the zoom to the far end 400.  The drawback of the 100-400 is the 4.5-5.6 lens so unless you increase the ISO setting up the scale getting quality images at full or close to zoom might be difficult.

     You can also check at KEH, at www.keh.com, they are a large reputable seller of used equipment.  I have purchased equipment from them and I have also sold used equipment to them with great results.

[Maria]

Thank you for the responses!

Yes i was referring to the 24-70 f/2.8.... the images are not sharp ;( that is what i'm confused about.... but again likely me not the lens...  i'll take some test shots later and post as a seperate thread. by that i mean that if i take a shot and then zoom in on it to see the detail (while still on camera) it's not sharp....

As far as the 100-400 goes i like the range!! will include it on my list to look at 😉

i have a cropped sensor camera so i believe the 70-200 would give me about 300 reach would it not since i think it is made for a full frame camera? 

[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.