1dmark2n or 24-70 f/2.8

[mrerico]

If you guys had to choose one which would you choose? :cool:

[cdifoto]

Depends if I already had a 1D Mark II/N or a 24-70 already. :)

[mrerico]

dont have either

you have a 30d and a rebel xt and a 70-200 f/2.8 + 50 mm f/1.8

[mrclark321]

$2700 used for one and $900 used for the other, odd comparison, can you elaborate some more?

[cdifoto]

Do you have nothing wider than the 50?

[Crossfire]

Its a difficult one to answer without more info. You have a couple of bodies already, and unless you are really unhappy with these, and need 8fps, then on balance, I would probably go with the 24-70.

If you did go with the MkIIN, you may end up buying new glass anyway!!

[PhotosGuy]

Glass first, always!

[mrerico]

Do you have nothing wider than the 50?


No I only have a 50mm f/1.8 and a 70-200f/2.8


But I am just asking if you guys had a 30d, xt , 50mmf1.8 and 70-200f/2.8 what would you choose? 1dmark2n or a 24-70mmf/2.8?

[Aaagogo]

lens over body, lens over body

[mrerico]

alright =]

I was really leaning towards the 1d series but I know how important lenses are, I was just being stubborn :]

[cdifoto]

No I only have a 50mm f/1.8 and a 70-200f/2.8


But I am just asking if you guys had a 30d, xt , 50mmf1.8 and 70-200f/2.8 what would you choose? 1dmark2n or a 24-70mmf/2.8?

Well I'd want to complete my lens lineup first, to at least get some sort of wide angle covered - not that 24mm is all that wide on a 1.6x. You have nothing behind 50mm.

If you had a Tamron 28-75 or Sigma 24-70 already and were asking, I'd say go with the 1D because it'll make those lenses even wider AND you already have great glass there. Contrary to popular opinion, you don't have to have everything in L before upgrading bodies is a legitimate option.

[Woolburr]

This is a real apples to oranges request. I own both...would have to say the lens makes more sense initially....especially if you have nothing wider than a 50mm.

[mrerico]

Do you have nothing wider than the 50?

Well I'd want to complete my lens lineup first, to at least get some sort of wide angle covered - not that 24mm is all that wide on a 1.6x. You have nothing behind 50mm.

If you had a Tamron 28-75 or Sigma 24-70 already and were asking, I'd say go with the 1D because it'll make those lenses even wider AND you already have great glass there. Contrary to popular opinion, you don't have to have everything in L before upgrading bodies is a legitimate option.


So your saying the Tamron and Sigma lenses shown above are just as equal to a canons 24-70mmf/2.8?

[cdifoto]

So your saying the Tamron and Sigma lenses shown above are just as equal to a canons 24-70mmf/2.8?

I have no personal experience with them but images I've seen tell me they're perhaps 80% of the L at about 40% of the price. To me thats good enough that if I wanted a 1 series body, I wouldn't feel like I absolutely must upgrade to the L first (assuming I had neither the L nor the 1D II already).

[mrerico]

If I were to get a sigma or tamron lense though would it be able to work with the 1d series?

[cdifoto]

If I were to get a sigma or tamron lense though would it be able to work with the 1d series?

Yes. The Sigma 24-70, Tamron 28-75, and Canon 24-70 are all 1.3x and FF compatible. The Tamron 17-50 is not. It'll mount but it doesn't have an image circle large enough for anything bigger than the 1.6x crops.

[slappy sam]

Unless your planning on upgrading to a 1d sometime soon, I'd just hold off and get a 17-55 2.8 IS over the 24-70.