70-200L or 24-70L

[shafiq]

I am considering buying my first "L" lens and need some advice. Currently I have a 50mm 1.8. As for photography I am an amateur and am not into any specific type of photography. However, I do find myself taking full length body shots of people, sometimes candid, sometimes posed. Does anyone have any sample pictures they can point me to that can give me a perspective of the focal range?

Thx

[ssim]

I don't have any of my people pictures posted but I can offer you my suggestion. If your primary target is going to be people then I would suggest the 24-70. With the 70-200 I believe that you would be working too far back from your subjects on full length. Another thing to consider is that on the 10D the 70mm focal length plays out to approx 110 and the 24 to 38.

[mkaplan]

Hey Sheldon, nice to see another Montrealer here... Nice shots in your pbase album.

I agree with Sheldon. For your type of shots, I would go for the 24-70. I have the 70-200 F2.8L IS and it is an amazing lens but that is not the lens I use for full length shots. I use that for hear shots. I use the 50mm F1.8 a lot as well. I have the 28-135 IS and the Sigma 15-30 but have thought about the 17-40 and 24-70 as well. Maybe some day.

[lightandlife]

I beg to differ. It depends on the number of people to be in the picture. If most of the time, you are taking shots of one or two persons, 70-200mm L might be better. If there are more than 2, you can always step back and take their pictures.

With this lens, you do not have to interrupt the natural course of social events and take pictures. When I attended a big party, two professional cameramen showed up with this lens.

On the other hand, if you are taking group pictures or top half of 2-3 people, 24-70mm would be better. Also, one has to be invasive and move closer to the people. Even for this purpose, you already have 50mm lens. Anyway 24-70mm would be the second lens I would acquire after 70-200mm.
You will eventually buy both. So it does not matter much which one you get first.

[DaveG]

A lens in the focal length of 70-200 2.8 L is remarkable for doing individual full length portraits. The compression that this lens offers (especially with a 10D's 1.6 conversion) makes it similar to a 300 mm lens. With the 2.8 aperture you can get a very pleasing perspective on the subject and blur the background at the same time. Sports Illustrated swim suit photogs - at least back in the 80's and 90's - used 300 mm lenses all the time to get this look.

What this lens won't let up do is to use fill flash. You'd just be too far away. An assitant with the reflector (a big sheet of white foamcore will be cheap and effective) who is standing just outside the frame will take care of that.

[scottbergerphoto]

I own both of these lenses, and they are both great. If you like to do head shots without being in the subject's face, the 70-200 or 100-400 IS L is the way to go. I do candid head shots and both of these long lenses are great. The 24-70 f/2.8 L is great for shots of groups or scenery.
You can't go wrong with either. Good Luck.
Scott

[Aylwin]

I'm thinking of getting my first L lens too but I'm actually heading in the other direction. I'm planning to get the 17-40L for close indoor shots and scenic, landscape shots.

If I had to choose between the 24-70L and the 70-200L, I'd probably go for the 70-200L (IS). The main reasons have already been mentioned above. Also, I feel there are quite few decent lens options in the 24-135mm range without the need for "L". It's not that an L lens wouldn't provide a noticeable improvement in that range. It's just that if I were to spend money on an L I'd first go wide or long.

[CyberDyneSystems]

I was just at a cookout,.. and all the kids were playing with hula hoops,... I still had my 70-200mm on my camera from a previous session,. but it was of little use. I had to keep backpeddling to get an entire child into the frame,.. I then switched to my 17-40mm

This was a much better solution.

As much as I like a long telephoto for what I usually shoot (wildlife) it is hard to use it for family photos and people.

[Joytek]

I have a 17-40 f4 L and a 70-200 f4 L lens for my 10D. The 17-40 is an awesome all arounder while the 70-200 is great for cropping out details. Both lenses are fantastic and I would highly recommend them.

They aren't also as expensive as the f2.8 L lenses, so you can get two for one.

w.

[perfectpixel]

joytek, do you ever miss having a lens that would cover the gap between the 40 and 70?

[jpinches]

unstuck wrote:
joytek, do you ever miss having a lens that would cover the gap between the 40 and 70?

I'll butt in here since I had the same situation. I started with the 17-40 & 70-200. There was a definite gap. But I shoot 2-3 times a week with differing subject matter. Anyway, I filled the gap with the 24-70 and must say with no regret. The 24-70 is my primary lens and I use the 17-40 and 70-200 for the wide and long situations. I have since added the 24 t/s for perspective correction. Although my wallet hurts, I often use all four lenses during a half-day outing. They make these different lengths for a reason ($$$$).

John

[shafiq]

Everyone...this has been a very interesting discussion for me. I actually went into a local camera shop and tried out the 24-70 as well as 70-200.

I guess what confuses me is that I was advised that I should go with the 17-40L as this would render pictures closets to a 35mm camera. He came to this conclusion by reviewing the EXIF data of all the pictures that I have taken to-date with my SonyCybershot S85.

The problem with this approach I see is that even though the pictures come in the equivalent 17-40 lens range, it never occured to the sales person that maybe I was taking these pictures because my cameras focal length was severily restricted to the fixed lens.

The fact of the matter is that I want to take the next step and explore new territory.

So have I decided which way to go? Nope not yet. I'll wait for a few more opinions and then just go for it.

Thanks everyone for the fun hearted comments.

Regards

Shafiq