# RE 6D and use of EF lenses



## Tee (Sep 29, 2013)

New here- pardon if this has been asked / answered before.

After some lengthy searches and comparisons, Im about to purchase a new Canon 6D; some of the packages being offered includes a 24-105mm f4 IS L lens and a 70-300mm f4-5.6 EF w/ IS. (one of the local retailers was trying to match this but was offering the tele w/out the IS)

~12 years ago, I purchased a 300D Rebel (1st gen), and with it, a 70-300mm f4-5.6 EF w/ IS lens (and another lens). 

My question, then, is 

1) is this the 'same' telefoto lens? 
2) EF is EF? jumping to the large, full frame format, this telefoto will work?

3) if it is the same, I don't want a redundant model. Suggestions for another lens to fill out the range? My focus is wildlife and landscape along with some outdoor action (lake-based water sports). 

Your replies and insight are most appreciated.
T


----------



## Jim Saunders (Sep 29, 2013)

Your zoom lens should work, but I'm curious: The 70-300 only came out in 2005, there were the 75-300 lenses before that. For lake sports it might be on the slow side but there is the better performance of your new body to counter that.

For landscapes the 17-40 is probably the most for the least, and more expensive options after that.

Jim


----------



## Vivid Color (Sep 29, 2013)

I would recommend the L version if you want to get a 70-300mm lens. There is a lot of discussion on other threads in this forum about the non-L and L versions of that range and the broad consensus is that the the L lens is far superior to the non-L versions. I own it, took it with me on an African safari, and I think it is an amazing lens. Canon has a $200 mail-in rebate on this lens now and Best Buy may still have it priced at $1399 (as if the rebate were instant) so you may be able pick it up for an effective price of $1199--that is if Canon will still honor the mail-in rebate. By the way, I also love my 6D and 24-105.


----------



## brad-man (Sep 30, 2013)

I doubt the inclusion of the 70-300 tele is an official Canon kit, just retailer marketing. Buy the real kit of 6D with 24-105, then purchase your tele separately. I would suggest either the 70-300L IS or the 70-200 f/4L IS. I have no experience with the 70-300L, but those that own one speak very highly of it. I do have the 70-200 f/4L IS, and if 200mm is enough for your needs, it is a magnificent lens. Very sharp, lightweight, weather sealed, fast focusing, excellent IS and takes the 1.4x converter very well.


----------



## verysimplejason (Sep 30, 2013)

70-300mm f4-5.6 EF w/ IS isn't worth it. Go for the L version or for a 70-200 F4L as previously suggested. In my experience, even the lowly EFS 55-250 IS outperforms it. You can also go for a Tamron 70-200 F2.8 VC but carefully test the lens since it is proven that some copies aren't that good. I'd still suggest the Canon 70-200 F4L IS if your funds are limited.


----------



## timmy_650 (Sep 30, 2013)

It sounds like they are trying to give you a $100-150 lens instead of a lens that is worth $300-$500. So it is a really bad deal. And it is a a 75-300, I have seen that before or there is a mark 1 of the 30-700 with is which isn't as good.

This is the Lens that it sounds like they are trying to give you
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=169269&Q=&is=USA&A=details


----------



## Tee (Sep 30, 2013)

All- thank you for your replies.

Jim, Im quite certain I bought my Canon 300 (rebel) in 2003 or 2004... I was taking pics of my kids at sports events and the like with it (checking file folders). It is 70-300mm EF w/ image stabilization, f4-5.6 (gold). 

There's a myriad of lenses to choose from; the one package i was looking at is thru Costco (red / L 24-105 and the 'same telefoto' w/ IS) along w/ a camera bag. The local big camera retailer here was matching it, but was offering the 'non IS' tele.. (surprise?)....

Never thought that a good size spend on cameras would be similar to buying a car!


----------



## brad-man (Oct 2, 2013)

Well Tee, if you had stayed with your 300D and the kit lens that came with it, that tele would probably have satisfied you. But your intention to buy a 6D w/24-105 is going to ruin you for lower quality lenses. If you pick up one of those modestly priced telephotos, you will surely be upgrading it in the near future after you compare the images from it to the images from your 24-105, and the resale value of such lenses is rather low. We really are trying to save you money, even if it doesn't seem like it.

Since one of your main photographic intentions is to shoot sports and that frequently requires longer lenses, I wanted to be sure that you understand the difference between a "crop sensor" camera (your Rebel) and a full frame camera (6D). Your Rebel will give you an apparent increase in the magnification of your images by a factor of 1.6x. In other words, a 100mm lens on a 6D will be 100mm. That same lens attached to your Rebel will give the equivalent field of view of a 160mm lens. So not only are full frame cameras more expensive than "crop" cameras, they also require longer (more expensive) lenses to achieve the same magnification. Of course the differences are far more complicated that just this aspect, but it's something to consider. I mention this because if you are trying to keep expenses down, you might be better off picking up a 70D (crop). It would still be quite an upgrade from your Rebel, and would leave you with more money for lenses. My apologies if you already knew this. Good luck with your purchase!


----------



## rs (Oct 3, 2013)

Tee said:


> All- thank you for your replies.
> 
> Jim, Im quite certain I bought my Canon 300 (rebel) in 2003 or 2004... I was taking pics of my kids at sports events and the like with it (checking file folders). It is 70-300mm EF w/ image stabilization, f4-5.6 (gold).
> 
> ...


The 70-300/4-5.6 IS USM was released in the latter half of 2005, 2 years after the 300D was released. 6 months prior to the lenses introduction, the 300D was discontinued. Are you sure it's not a 75-300 you've currently got?

What you've already got is largely irrelevant - if you're after quality telephoto reach for a modest sum, I'd recommend against using a 6D with a budget xx-300 zoom. The results will be underwhelming as the lens will be soft, and to make matters even worse, you'll be cropping loads. 

For lake based water sports, you either need a motorboat to get up close (still around the 70-200 range), or serious reach.

If a motorboat is practical (are the coaches/regatta organisers using one already?), you'll get the best shots. IS is essential out on the water, even at high shutter speeds - if you can stretch to it, get a 70-200/4 IS, but if you can really get close without giving off too much wash, the 24-105 might just do it. Moving with the boats shouldn't tax the AF too much, so a 6D is good. 

If a motorboat is impossible, quality reach is everything. The already mentioned 70-300L is worth every penny. Combine that with a good crop camera (7D or 70D) for an effective 480mm field of view, and it might just about be telephoto enough and sharp enough to give you something meaningful to crop into in post.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 3, 2013)

Tee said:


> New here- pardon if this has been asked / answered before.
> 
> After some lengthy searches and comparisons, Im about to purchase a new Canon 6D; some of the packages being offered includes a 24-105mm f4 IS L lens and a 70-300mm f4-5.6 EF w/ IS. (one of the local retailers was trying to match this but was offering the tele w/out the IS)
> 
> ...


 
Yes, its the same lens. The 70-300mm IS hasn't changed in many years. EF lenses are all full frame. The lens will actually resolve more on FF than it did on your crop camera.


----------



## wsheldon (Oct 3, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Tee said:
> 
> 
> > New here- pardon if this has been asked / answered before.
> ...



I agree. I picked up one of these for my son when I bought my 6D + 24-105L, since there was a special Canon package deal last winter that dropped the price to $200 which was too good to pass up (~$300 off). It doesn't quite compare to the 70-200L's, but it's actually not a bad lens at all on FF. See the Photozone review (http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/558-canon70300f456isff?start=1) for details. It isn't as good at 300mm as 200mm, though, so getting a 70-200 f4 and cropping may do you just as well, but if you get a great deal like I did it may suffice until you outgrow it.


----------

