28-70 or 70-200 2.8??

[wlahc1]

I am trying to figure out which to buy. I do a wide variety of shooting and both lense woud be benifical to me, but i cnat decided which to buy first. Has anybody heard anything about a replacement for the 28-70 2.8 commin out down the road? I hanve not. So that is why i am hesitant, but then you have the new is 70 -200 which is awsome also.I am just stuck and cant make up my mind, I see uses for both lenses and I also see them being used the same amount of time, andy suggestion anybody?
Bobby

[Roger_Cavanagh]

wlahc1,

Well, if it was me I'd go for the 70-200LIS. It is new, it is, so they say, awesome. And you never know that 28-70LIS might be just around the corner. :)

Photodo rate the old 70-200 higher than the 28-70 and the new lens is said to be just as good. The small number of reviews on Photography Review give the edge in customer satisfaction to the longer lens too.

You'd never know that I'm lusting after this lens, would you? :D

Cheers,

[James Knowles]

It depends, of course. I own the 28-70 and a 70-200 f4 as well as a couple of others. The 70-200 is excellent, but the 28-70 is the one that lives on my camera. I'd say the most compelling reason to choose the 70-200 instead of the 28-70 would be, as the previous replier suggested, the fact that it's new and unlikely to be replaced soon; the 28-70 on the other hand is approaching "venerable" status, and there've been rumors of a 24-105 f2.8 IS or a 28-105 2.8 IS.

The 28-70 is very good optically and, for many, a better general purpose tool. Covers portraits, a respectable range of landscape lengths, close-up event photography, some architectural. Its a good "wandering-about" lens.

On a digital SLR, with a heavy crop factor, the 70-200 is all telephoto - limited to useless in a house, limited for architecture, usable but long for portraits, no good for wide landscapes. And even bigger and heavier than the 28-70. Terrific for shooting high school sports, parades and rock concerts though.

[womble]

What do you currently have? The 70-200 with a 1.6 multiplier would result in a fairly long and specialised focal length that would limit its general usefulness...

[darrell]

The 28-105 "lives" on my D30, and I rent a 70-200 when the need arises. I'm eagerly awaiting the rumored 28-105 2.8L, but since it's not here yet, and if you have to get one right now, the 70-200 is an awesome lens. depending on what you're doing,70mm on a d30 isn't quite long enough for all around work, but the bigger zoom is pretty big and heavy for general work.

[tagger]

Hey Bobby,
I am in exactly the same boat. Dealer says I should get both. I am going to be taking pictures with subjects outside at a maximum of 30-40 feet away, most less. The subjects will have small amount of motion. They will by my soccer kids kicking around a ball, or heading or whatever, but not in a game environment.
I have the same quesions. Which lens should I get? Right now, I can't afford the 2300.00 for both.
After reading this thead, I hate to drop 1100.00 for a 28-70 that may be replaced later this year, but it doesn't sound like the 70-200 is what I need for my application.
I want to make poster size prints of the kids.
I would also welcome all recomendations from the members of the forum.
Thanks,
TAGGS

[fastlane65]

I've had the 28-70 since it was released ('93?) and it has been a wonderful lens. It just comes up a little short sometimes.

Last month I got the 70-200 IS. Even more wonderful. It is great with kids because it lets me back away. With the 28-70 I was right there with them and they were conscious of me. The 70-200 lets me get out of their "discomfort zone" and the shots are more natural. I can also get great closeups for portraits without sticking a big lens right in the subjects face. On camera 540 flash had to reach for fill shots sometimes, though. Upgraded to 550 a few days ago but have not really tested yet.

You can't go wrong with either lens. Both get heavy. And your bank account gets light.