Lens Dilemma (Page 2): Thank you for all of your replies. I did state my camera bodies, I thought. I have a 5D mark iii and a Canon Rebel T6i. I use them both for different things. The...

OldSams Loc: Pensacola, Florida

Thank you for all of your replies. I did state my camera bodies, I thought. I have a 5D mark iii and a Canon Rebel T6i. I use them both for different things. The outdoor gigs that I spoke of are outdoor events. One is a Graduation Ceremony, the other is a Memorial Dedication. Mostly, I want the range of the 70-300mm. And I like buying EF lenses so that I can use them differently on both bodies.

And I went ahead and bought the first iteration of the 70-300mm USM with IS. And I got a really good deal, used. I will let you know how I like it when I pick it up tomorrow. Thank you again, everyone.

Jakebrake Loc: Broomfield, Colorado

cthahn wrote:

If you call yourself a professional photographer, you should not have to ask all these questions here.

Whats up with you and your snarky remark? The OP simply asked a quite detailed question looking for input from others who have used the lenses. I thought that's what this forum was all about. If you want to to be irrelevant and insulting, I would suggest you visit the 'ATTIC'.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

OldSams wrote:

Hello all, br I'm new to the forum and need a lit... (show quote)

For still photography, there isn't a great deal of difference between the EF 70-300mm USM IS versus the EF 70-300mm USM IS II (Nano). I think you'll find image quality and focus speed/accuracy pretty similar. The main difference is that the new "Nano" USM drive is more usable for videography (instead of a slower focusing STM lens, which are good for video, but not great for action shooting). The new lens also has been redesigned with a more "modern" look and is the first Canon lens with an LCD distance scale, which is programmable to display different things... kind of neat. But neither of those factors will have much bearing on the lens' ability to capture an image or the quality of its images. I think it's pretty much a toss-up, if all you consider is image quality.

Another lens you may want to consider is the EF 70-200/4L USM (non-IS version), which can be found used for close to the price of the older 70-300mm. Canon's 70-200s are better built, better sealed, more durable "workhorses", internal focusing and zooming... and three of the Canon models use a fluorite element to help reduce chromatic aberrations to a minimum. The two f/4 models - the cheaper without IS, the more expensive with it - have been around a while and can be pretty easily found used (unlike the new 70-300 II). I have and use the IS version (as well as the older version of the f/2.8 IS (the f/4 lenses are about 1/3 lighter and smaller than the f/2.8). Normally I would recommend the IS, except that even used it sells for more than you want to spend. Both the f/4 70-200s are very sharp throughout their focal length range... As far as image quality is concerned, they rival the EF 70-200/2.8 IS USM II, which many folks consider one of the best 70-200s ever made.

Since you can get pretty close to the action, I would think 70-200mm would be "long enough" for dog park photography... especially if you're using an APS-C camera. 70-200mm are my most used lenses for sports.... though I also frequently use longer lenses on a second camera (300mm primes or a 100-400). But I'm shooting events where I can't get nearly as close as would be possible in a dog park. My "sports" cameras are all APS-C.

If really needed, the 70-200/4 can be used with a 1.4X teleconverter, to act as a 98-280mm f/5.6 combo. With a quality 1.4X, there's little loss of image quality or AF performance. (The 70-300mm lenses cannot be used at all with teleconverters... Canon's won't fit and any 1.4X would make for an f/8 combo, which can't autofocus on many Canon cameras and is likely to slow down even on the ones that can.)

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

cthahn wrote:

If you call yourself a professional photographer, you should not have to ask all these questions here.

Actually it's more "professional" to ask questions such as these, when there's some choice that's not very clearly defined.

OldSams Loc: Pensacola, Florida

amfoto1 wrote:

For still photography, there isn't a great deal of difference between the EF 70-300mm USM IS versus the EF 70-300mm USM IS II (Nano). I think you'll find image quality and focus speed/accuracy pretty similar. The main difference is that the new "Nano" USM drive is more usable for videography (instead of a slower focusing STM lens, which are good for video, but not great for action shooting). The new lens also has been redesigned with a more "modern" look and is the first Canon lens with an LCD distance scale, which is programmable to display different things... kind of neat. But neither of those factors will have much bearing on the lens' ability to capture an image or the quality of its images. I think it's pretty much a toss-up, if all you consider is image quality.

Another lens you may want to consider is the EF 70-200/4L USM (non-IS version), which can be found used for close to the price of the older 70-300mm. Canon's 70-200s are better built, better sealed, more durable "workhorses", internal focusing and zooming... and three of the Canon models use a fluorite element to help reduce chromatic aberrations to a minimum. The two f/4 models - the cheaper without IS, the more expensive with it - have been around a while and can be pretty easily found used (unlike the new 70-300 II). I have and use the IS version (as well as the older version of the f/2.8 IS (the f/4 lenses are about 1/3 lighter and smaller than the f/2.8). Normally I would recommend the IS, except that even used it sells for more than you want to spend. Both the f/4 70-200s are very sharp throughout their focal length range... As far as image quality is concerned, they rival the EF 70-200/2.8 IS USM II, which many folks consider one of the best 70-200s ever made.

Since you can get pretty close to the action, I would think 70-200mm would be "long enough" for dog park photography... especially if you're using an APS-C camera. 70-200mm are my most used lenses for sports.... though I also frequently use longer lenses on a second camera (300mm primes or a 100-400). But I'm shooting events where I can't get nearly as close as would be possible in a dog park. My "sports" cameras are all APS-C.

If really needed, the 70-200/4 can be used with a 1.4X teleconverter, to act as a 98-280mm f/5.6 combo. With a quality 1.4X, there's little loss of image quality or AF performance. (The 70-300mm lenses cannot be used at all with teleconverters... Canon's won't fit and any 1.4X would make for an f/8 combo, which can't autofocus on many Canon cameras and is likely to slow down even on the ones that can.)

For still photography, there isn't a great deal of... (show quote)

THANK YOU! That is a very thorough and well written review. You answered many questions for me. I appreciate it, greatly.

whitewolfowner

OldSams wrote:

Hello all, br I'm new to the forum and need a lit... (show quote)

If you are trying to do professional work, you need professional tools. Get Canon's professional line of lenses and you may keep your job. If you don't, someone else will and they will get your job. I'm assuming here you are doing real professional work here and not just taking snap shots for some idiot realtor who only cares for a street shot of their fixer uppper's.