Can I use the Canon 70-200 2.8L IS with T3i

<p>About a year ago I started doing portraits for friends with my T3i, kit 18-55mm and the el cheapo 50mm 1.8. I do newborns and non walking infants indoors and families and walking infants, toddlers and children outdoors. I am getting good results, people are starting to refer me, I am now charging, but not advertising so I do not have too many jobs. Now that I have a portfolio and I am sure I can get good results I want to upgrade my equipment. <br>

My current thinking is to prioritize my purchases according to what is going to add the most 'value' to my work. Someone advised me to start with lenses...so I am thinking of buying the 70-200 2.8L IS first since I do not have any telephotos and I adore the boken of telephotos. During the second half of the year I am thinking of buying the Canon 5D Mark III and the 50mm 1.4L, and maybe in a few years a 35mm L . So here are my questions: Can I use full frame lenses with a T3i and if so, will it be 'beneficial' in my work? I would love to hear from other natural light/outdoor family photographers about my plans for my lenses...do you think I can get away with just a a 50mm and a 70-200mm? </p>

<p>Almost every EF lens ever made by Canon will work on the APS-C, and that definitely includes the 70-200 IS lenses.<br /> The restriction is the other way: no Canon EF-S lens will mount or work on a 35mm sensor or film Canon body. Third-party "digital-only" lenses may mount, but will not fill the full frame with an image.<br /> However, will "work" does not necessarily mean that some of the larger and heavier L lenses are a good match for the small and light APS-C bodies like the T3i. The kit EF-S telephoto 55-250mm IS is very good, is light and will balance well on your existing camera, and it is a LOT cheaper. Look into it, knowing that the EF-S 55-255mm will not work on any "full-frame" body you may or may not get in some future date.</p>

<p>I'm a big fan of getting what you need now, not buying something , so to speak, for your kid that has so much "room to grow" that the poor kid looks like it was outfitted at the salvage shop.</p>

<p>" Can I use full frame lenses with a T3i and if so, will it be 'beneficial' in my work?"</p>

<p>A full frame lens will give you the same angle of view as a lens optimized to work on cropped sensor cameras. You will not gain any benefit</p>

<p>^ I'd disagree. The crop sensor will effectively give you a more acute angle of view. Effectively zoomed in more.</p>

<p>JDM - Thank you for the cheaper recommendation. But I am going to ditch the crop sensor in 6-12 months, so I really do not want to spend money on a lens for it. I am want to pull the purchase of the 70-200mm L lens if it will work on the T3i (thank you for confirming it will!) and if there will be some value added. <br>

Harry- I did not ask the other question well. I have heard/read that L lens produce sharper and better color images. Even though I suspect I would still see that with it mounted to a T3i, I wanted to throw the question out there in case there are factors that would affect the performance of an L lens on a T3i.</p>

 

<p>**I want to pull the purchase forward<br>

-sorry for the bad grammar!</p>

<p>You might want to rent or borrow a 70-200 2.8L and see if you really like it. It's a real bazooka and I found I avoided using it most of the time and eventually sold it. Was much happier with the 70-200 4L IS and was willing to carry it around town.</p>

<p>On my 20D I found the 70-200 a bit overpowered much of the time. However I was building towards a better equipment collection. So I did not stick with EOS 1.6 crop factor lenses. When I finally tried my 70-200 2.8L lens on a full frame camera the 5D (loaned by someone that wanted free photography and got it), I ordered the 5D MKI the next day. I was waiting and waiting for the Mk II but I had to make the move. So I skipped the MKII and finally got the much better AF in the 5D MKIII. The 70-200 range is a perfect range on a full frame camera but not on a 1.6 crop camera. But, then you have to start somewhere. </p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>My current thinking is to <strong><em>prioritize my purchases according to what is going to add the most 'value' to my work. </em></strong><br /><strong><em>I am going to ditch the crop sensor in 6-12 months</em></strong> . . . I am want to pull the purchase of the 70-200mm L lens if it will work on the T3i (thank you for confirming it will!) <strong><em>and if there will be some value added.</em></strong><br />I would love <strong><em>to hear from other natural light/outdoor family photographers about my plans for my lenses</em></strong>...<br />do you think I <em><strong>can get away with just a a 50mm and a 70-200mm?</strong></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>NO. I do NOT think that you can "get away with" just a 50mm and the 70 to 200mm. Attempting to do so for those tasks you have listed would be an exceptionally foolish choice.</p>

<p>For the purposes of Professionally Photographing: <em>“newborns and non walking infants indoors and families and walking infants, toddlers and children outdoors”</em>; -AND - in consideration that until you buy the 5DMkII you will be working with the APS-C Format camera, I think a more suitable Canon Zoom Lens to purchase for use in the short term AND also for use in the long term with the 5DMkII would be: the EF 24 to 70 F/2.8MkII.</p>

<p>I think that a most sensible Canon PRIME LENS purchase NOW, for both the Short Term and the Long Term use would be the EF 85 F/1.8.</p>

<p>Then, the next most sensible Canon PRIME LENS purchase for both the Short Term and the Long Term use would be EITHER the EF 135 F/2L – OR – the EF 35F/1.4L, depending upon whether your emphasis is more slanted to an environmental style or a tight style – AND – whether your Client Base is more FAMILIES or SINGLES/COUPLES.</p>

<p>The LAST lens, after those three mentioned above, that I would buy for: <em>“newborns and non walking infants indoors and families and walking infants, toddlers and children outdoors”</em> would be the EF 70 to 200 F/2.8L IS MkII. There are several reasons, a brief summary of which is:</p>

<p>> it is white;<br />> it is big;<br />> it is (comparatively) heavy; <br />> it can be intrusive and confronting to amateur talent;<br />> the Field of View and typical Shooting Distances are too narrow and too far away, for use as the main working lens on a 135 Format Camera for those jobs mentioned (even less useful for the tasks mentioned on APS-C Camera);<br />> it costs a truckload of cash and as such is not a viable business purchase for the jobs outlined, especially when the 85/1.8 + 135/2L is such a cheap alternative for the necessary shots required at a FL beyond 70mm - and if it is Bokeh that you seek (and maybe also very shallow DoF) then F/2 actually does outshoot F/2.8.</p>

<p>*</p>

<p>There is no such lens as the EF 50 F/1.4L - you have a good 50mm lens already, I assume it is the EF 50 F/1.8 MkII. Spending money on either the EF 50 F/1.4 - OR - the EF 50 F/1.2L, at this time would be money wasted when you could buy other lenses which are NOT 50mm Prime Lenses and in so doing would add more value to your kit and its flexibility.</p>

<p>WW</p>

I have the 5D Mark III and just got the 70-200 2.8 IS II. It is an incredible lens, but it is very heavy (almost 3.5 lbs.), so depending on how

long your shoots are, your arms are going to get tired. Plus, if you upgrade to the 5D III at some point, the combo is about 5.5 lbs., so a

lot of weight to hold. It also would not be very well balanced on a lightweight camera like yours, and may be too tight of a zoom on a crop

sensor for your needs. I have the 85 1.8 as well, and it's a great lens for a great price. It's lightweight, and on a crop sensor would be an

equivalent field of view of around 135mm.

<p>I'd like to agree and (respectfully) disagree with William. I do a lot of photography of my children, both indoors and out, and in most circumstances the combination of the 24-70/2.8 L II and 70-200/4 L IS is optimal. In some situations, such as my daughter's piano recitals in dimly lit churches, I use a fast prime such as the 85/1.2 L II, but the aforementioned zooms cover 95% of my shooting needs.</p>

<p>(By the way, I concur with William's endorsements of the 35/1.4 L and 135/2 L, which are two of Canon's finest primes.)</p>

Sorry it is very doubtfull that those 2 lens will get you by while they are both good lenses for a lot of work. You won't likely

get the warmth of the moment,with a lens that capture both parents and child or children within being able to enclose

some of the surroundings and the 50 on a crop won't give you the wide angle of view you need it's good for natrual light

most of the time,but a lot of times even with the 1.4 version of the 50 I'm searching for extra light,and for sure I have to

stay way back to get a full scene ,it will be perfect for some shots and worthless in others and the 70-200 will be limited by

the same issues ,no room for capturing heat you need with the 70mm ,you might want to rent yourself a wider prime and

see what you thnk works best ,if you continue to use cropped bodies this will force you into wider primes,which is all I'm

using myself ,but that's fine for me, I have the 24-105l and do well wit it on more wider shots and work we'll with zoom

shots and of course it gives perfect pictures.Primarily though the 2 by them self won't make the job complete without a lot

if lucky shots.

<p>I am not sure that Mark and I disagree, but I do think that we are providing commentary on very different topics.</p>

<p>If I understand correctly, one of Mark's main points is that he finds a 24 to 70/2.8 and 70 to 200/2.8L (used on I assume a 5D Series Camera), provided 95% of his needs for photographing <em>his</em> children in both indoor and outdoor situations. That makes complete sense to me. Having access to a zoom compass of 24 to 200 at F/2.8 used with a 5D Series is ideal for all the situations most people would find themselves in to record their own children's adventures. </p>

<p>However, my three main points are:<br>

> it would be a very poor choice to have ONLY a 70 to 200/2.8 Zoom and a 50mm Prime for use on an APS-C Camera to cover a <em>Professional Portraiture Shoot</em> of <em>"newborns and non walking infants indoors and families and walking infants, toddlers and children outdoors." </em><br>

<em> </em><br>

<em>></em>It would be a less poor choice to have only those two lenses and 5DMkIII for those jobs, but it still would be a poor choice.</p>

<p><em>> </em>For the above described <em>Professional Portrait Shoots</em>, when using either and APS-C Camera or a 5DMkIII, FIRSTLY buying a 24 to 70/2.8L is a much better choice than buying a 70 to 200/2.8L.<em><br /></em></p>

<p>***</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><strong>"prioritize my purchases according to what is going to add the most 'value' to my work"</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>A relevant 'statistic' to address this portion OP's question in regard to which zoom lens to buy first would be to ask: <br>

How many shots would be made with a 24 to 70/2.8 vs. a 70 to 200/2.8 when covering a Typical Professional Portrait shoot of "newborns and non walking infants indoors and families and walking infants, toddlers and children outdoors."? </p>

<p>My answer to that question is - the 24 to 70/2.8 would definitively be the main working lens, and even more so, for the next 6 to 12 months, when the OP is using only an APS-C Camera. </p>

<p>WW </p>

<h1>"Can I use the Canon 70-200 2.8L IS with T3i?"</h1>

<p>Well, some say to always use a lens made for the smaller sensor camera, but after sticking my EF 24-70 f/2.8 on my T2i back in late 2011, I got hooked on using very good glass on the smaller cameras. I can only say that I was personally astonished at just how good that 18-MP sensor really was--and is.</p>

<p>About a year ago, I got this shot handheld using the T2i with the EF 70-200 f/4 (non-IS). '</p>

<p><a href="/photo/17835657&size=md">http://www.photo.net/photo/17835657&size=md</a></p>

<p>It's no masterpiece, but I was quite pleased, all the more because I was able to pull it off hand-held (with the ISO set at 1600).</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p><strong>"But I am going to ditch the crop sensor in 6-12 months,....."</strong><br>

<strong><br /></strong>Why do you want to do this if you are getting good results with it? It's a capable camera. You can use this camera to develop technique and build your business. <br>

As others have said, you can use any Canon EF or EF-S lens on the camera. Also consider 3rd party lenses. If you are in a location where you can rent lenses, I would urge you to do so. Renting is a good investment prior to purchase. </p>

<p>I suppose we can assume now that, given the chest beating and posturing, the OP is never coming back...</p>

<p>Thank you everyone for the wonderful perspectives you have shared, I have much to think about! <br>

William W - I think I knew the two lens would be limiting myself too much, but I really needed to hear it. I appreciate the alternatives you and others have brought into my line of consideration. <br>

I will say, I am not planning on ditching the T3i all together, it will still be around as a back up, and as I build up my equipment, I may decide shoot with two cameras for awhile. Also, one of the reasons I was looking at the 70-200 2.8L is because I do not have a telephoto (I have a 18-55 kit lens and Canon 50 1.8 II, which gives me nice photos but takes forever to focus so I only use it with newborns who do not move much!). I shadowed a photographer who uses the 200L - one of her shooting technique is to give the subjects space to be themselves and it is remarkable the moments she catches...but I am not about to 'start' with a $5000-$6000 lens! I also want to keep the option of weddings open and I have read that the 70-200 2.8L is a favorite for wedding photographers (however, I do not want to become a full time wedding photographer, rather be able to do a handful a year if the opportunities arise) - I was hoping this lens would be good for both. I like the idea of renting one to see if I can handle it. <br>

No worries Puppy face, I am capable of my own chest beating and posturing from time to time;) But thank you for your concern...I assuming I am the OP? I live in another age when it comes to acronyms in writing. I guess it is true, at some point we all start to sound like our mothers!<br>

Also, I posted a handful of pictures since I am dancing the line between amateur and professional I need feedback! I would be so appreciative for folks to stop by and view my photos and let me really know what you think! </p>

Dana, your photos are adorable! And just so you know, OP refers to "original poster", so yes, that would be you!

<p>Yes you are the "OP"<br>

OP = Originating / Original Post / Poster.</p>

<p>*</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I also want to keep the option of weddings open and I have read that the 70-200 2.8L is a favorite for wedding photographers.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Again, my comment is for you to not confuse <em>"favourite"</em> with <em>"most useful / most used".</em></p>

<p>My "favourite" Portrait Lens is the EF135/2 - but it is not my "most used" and was not the "priority lens purchase" for our Wedding and Portrait Kits, when we cut over our W+P Studio to Canon Digital in 2004.</p>

<p>My interpretation of your question is that it is mostly a Business Question. Your business is the Entity that will be buying tools and those choices should be predicated on outcomes which will forward the business in the best manner possible.</p>

<p>One point that I noted regularly, is that Business Choices are often stuffed up by Emotional and Subjective Thinking. </p>

<p>*</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I suppose we can assume now that, given the chest beating and posturing, the OP is never coming back...</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Wrong assumption: thankfully.<br>

BTW, I didn't read <em>"chest beating and posturing"</em> in the responses.<br>

<br>

WW</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I posted a handful of pictures since I am dancing the line between amateur and professional I need feedback! I would be so appreciative for folks to stop by and view my photos and let me really know what you think!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I like the photos that you posted.</p>

<p>A few points:</p>

<p>Watch the cropping/framing – “Mr Serious” could arguably be better if he had all of his left hand. And the child sucking the heart might be better with all of one eye – though that shot is ‘likeable quirky’ just as it is.</p>

<p>Watch the Shutter Speed, when you are shooting in Av Mode – “Little Beauty” was pulled at 1/100s, it is a good shot, no doubt about that, but at 1/100s shooting in Available Light you will get several shots of toddlers that show SUBJECT MOVEMENT and IMO it is usually not worth the risk of having to dump an otherwise cracker of a shot, because of Subject Movement Blur – I like to be at 1/250s to 1/320s for that age group when shooting in Available Light.</p>

<p>The baby in the basket arguably has the best lighting execution: the modelling on the face is subtle and sublime, as a contrast, all the other samples do not show the same lighting creativity – I think you could move forward in this area – concentrate on finding a situation/ location where you “see” the beautiful light adorning and painting the Subject – and then let the Subject do their thing in that lighting situation.</p>

<p>A simple backdrop would be a good investment for those basket shots – you could make one or six, I am fairly sure of that.</p>

<p>I am both intrigued by your choice of: and impressed with your execution of - Spot Metering.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>Postscript:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I am not planning on ditching the T3i all together, it will still be around as a back up, and as I build up my equipment, I may decide shoot with two cameras for awhile.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Logical and Sensible.</p>

<p>Thanks again William W - the feedback is great. I hear you on the shutter speed. One of the reasons I want to upgrade is because I have read that the 5D and performs really well at higher ISOs and I could obviously benefit from faster lens. Currently I see a lot of noise when I shoot over ISO 200 and I have already had to chuck a lot of great shots because of movement (though I now often use a tripod to eliminate shutter shake, but you are right those little ones move a lot)! I do have plans to get some backdrops - I am currently picking things up as I need them. But I am getting sick of all the white walls in my shots! <br>

Thank you for taking the time to give me some advice on equipment and view my work and give me feedback. I truly appreciate it.</p>

<p>I have the less expensive 6D and Sigma 70-200 2.8. Also I sometimes shoot film.<br>

Here Jared Polin shoots an infant with a 70-200 2.8, he likes a macro as well:<br>

http://froknowsphoto.com/5-min-portrait-baby-billy-canid-photos/</p>

<p>Don't get too worried about the noise you see at ISO 200. You'll see similar noise on a 5D2/3 or even a 6D. It's an artifact of the high MP CMOSs when you look at the RAW outputs. However, at such low ISOs, just a touch (usually precooked into the jpegs) of NR on the RAWS will blend it out if you don't like it, but even if you print it straight, you'll be very hard pressed to see it. Where you will see a real benefit is going to be in the ISO 1600 + realm. </p>

<p>To be honest, if you want FF, a vastly more cost effective choice for your type of shooting is going to be a 6D. The 5D3 is just way overkill for this kind of work, and at double (+) the price, it's frankly just a waste of finite resources.</p>

<p>If you are looking for a long lens with a large aperture to be able to use faster shutter speeds, beware of the shallower depth of field (DOF) you will get in that scenario, specially if you move on to a full-frame camera. A long lens with a larger sensor used in a short distance equals a great magnification, which is the factor to get a shallow DOF, which translates into a portrait of a person's head with sharp eyes but out-of-focus nose and ears. While many people like this, and a truly great portrait when properly executed, it also means a lot of concentration to keep the proper focus point on the subject's eye, which may be distracting for a portraitist trying to get a nice composition, even more when the subject won't hold a pose.<br>

For example, even while I like the shallow DOF of my 100mm f/2 when used for portraits, I won't try to get a profile image of a couple during their wedding with an aperture larger than f/5.6, and will even try to use f/8 to make sure both of them appear sharp enough in a 8x10" print of a photo taken from a side with such focal length.<br>

This example translates to my choice of f/4 IS zooms, and fast primes (fixed focal length lens): If I don't have the time to select a fast prime, and carefully focus with the camera on a tripod, then I can't be sure I will get a properly focused photo with an aperture larger than f/4.<br>

Then I would suggest you to test your camera with higher ISO levels, even up to 800, and see the final result you would deliver (perhaps a printed photo), and only when you had seen the results you would be able to choose between a large aperture and a high ISO (you should be able to do this testing with your 50mm f/1.8 starting at f/2.8 and ISO 100, and closing the lens' aperture while increasing the ISO to keep a constant exposure). Don't worry about the on-screen noise of a RAW file, only the finished product matters (and even then you could improve a poor result with a software to remove noise).</p>

<p>Thanks Marcus and Alan for mentioning the 6D - I was considering this and the only reason I was going to go for the 5D is I was worried that a few years down the line, I would have good reason for wanting the 5D and in the end spend more. This is in fact what happened with my T3i - I nearly bought the 6D and thought, well my photos are only for me, so the T3i will do...at that point I simply did not have the confidence to think I could ever do more than shoot as a hobby. Would the 6D also suit for weddings and low light/star situations? I started as a hobbyist doing primarily landscapes and I was just getting into night photography when I got pregnant. Getting out at the wee hours is still a bit hard for me, but weddings and night shooting is something I would like to keep open with my purchase. </p>

<p>Ruben - thank you for the suggestion, I am going to take you up on the testing. I have not done an exercise like the one you suggested. The noise I am seeing is in Lightroom and not on prints. I just assumed I would see the noise on larger prints 16x20 (I think that is the largest recommended print size for my camera).</p>