Fast lense choice 24-70/2.8 or 70-200/2.8L IS

[MagnusH]

I am going to upgrade my equipment to digital and are planing to buy this set:
20D
EF-S 17-85/4-5.6 IS USM
EF 70-300/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

But I think I would like to have a faster lense as well, mainly for portraits,
weddings, and maybe some cat photos.

I have set my eyes on the 24-70/2.8L which seems to be a good lense, black,
not to heavy, and not too expensive.

However I have seen some of the results you can get with a 70-200/2.8L IS, and
this is where my problem starts. It is more expensive, it is bulkier, but it seems truly
exceptional. I know there are the 70-200/4L, but how much will I gain compared to the
70-300...

I guess the question I am asking is wether the 24-70 is better for my needs or if I
should go for the larger and more expensive 70-200?

Any comments on the "basic" kit would also be appreciated.

/Magnus

[Panza]

i feel that the 70-200 might be just a tad too long with the 1.6 crop factor for indoor portraits if the space is cramped. On the other hand it would be perfect for the cat shots I imagine. But you can get pretty close to any cat usually so you'd probably be ok with 70mm there too.
And for weddings I'd say the 70-200 is too long for most things except portraits. You simply won't ba able to do a group shot for example.

[JLS Photo]

My choice -

24-70L F2.8
70-200L F4

The 70-200L F4 is much sharper than the 70-300 DO.

Be sure to completely investigate the 17-85 before jumping in--indications from "pre-production" samples shot a lot of purple fringing. I'd wait for a complete review with a production sample before spending that much money on an EF-S (non-L) lens.

I have a link on my webpage below providing a collection of lens reviews from your use, if you need it.

[CoolToolGuy]

If you are planning to get the 17-85 IS, consider buying primes instead of the 24-70 L to give you the other capabilities. The primes in that range are outstanding lenses, will give you more lens speed, and will cost you far less than the 24-70 L. The 50mm f1.4, 85mm f1.8, and even the 28mm f1.8 are in the $300-400 range, and you could get all three for about the same price. For what you describe, the zoom is not that critical, and the extra lens speed gives you some significant ambient-light capabilities.

My 2 cents.

Have Fun,

[DaveG]

I am going to upgrade my equipment to digital and are planing to buy this set:
20D
EF-S 17-85/4-5.6 IS USM
EF 70-300/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

But I think I would like to have a faster lense as well, mainly for portraits,
weddings, and maybe some cat photos.

I have set my eyes on the 24-70/2.8L which seems to be a good lense, black,
not to heavy, and not too expensive.

However I have seen some of the results you can get with a 70-200/2.8L IS, and
this is where my problem starts. It is more expensive, it is bulkier, but it seems truly
exceptional. I know there are the 70-200/4L, but how much will I gain compared to the
70-300...

I guess the question I am asking is wether the 24-70 is better for my needs or if I
should go for the larger and more expensive 70-200?

Any comments on the "basic" kit would also be appreciated.

/Magnus

The first lens that I'd add is the 50 f1.4. It'll give you a very fast portrait lens for not a lot of money. It also is the longest focal length that you can get away with if you are planning on doing any living room bridal portraits, as much more focal length is too long for the room.

The 70-200 f2.8L is a wonderful lens (I own one) but its use at a wedding is going to be limited. Next season will be my first with digital-only weddings and I see that lens being used to do some choir loft shots. This will be the first time that I'll get to use a lens with this kind of focal length range and speed so I may well change my opinion.

In any case it would be a lens choice that could be put off for awhile.

The 24-70 is an excellent lens but as I've written before it doesn't set me on fire. It's the same as a 39mm to 112 mm lens and f2.8 is a very slow aperture all along that effective focal length. With its constant aperture it would be a wonderful portrait lens if you were using studio strobes as exposures with the variable aperture (for example the 24-85mm f3.5-f4.5) lenses would vary a bit as you zoomed.

But for weddings, and where I'm either using the lens with flash - and this would be almost always since it'd either be flash only inside or fill flash outside - then the aperture speed becomes kind of moot. So I'd pick (and I did) the 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 for that focal length coverage and the 16-35mm f2.8 to give me something moderately wide. THAT is my go-to lens that 16-35. Fast, sharp and it stays on my camera thoughout many assignments.

When the 20D comes I'll add the 10-22 to finally get something truly wide.

[mjordan]

You might as well figure you are going to have to buy both. The 24-70 2.8L is an excellent lens for both indoor and outdoor. It's sharp, crisp and fast. But it is only a 24-70mm zoom. The 70-200 2.8L IS is also an exceptional lens (I'm sure the 70-200 2.8L non-IS is also and a bit cheaper). I use both lenses indoors and outside as my needs change between the different zoom lengths.

And yes, the 70-200 2.8L can make a good wedding lens. There are times you are going to be stuck at one end of the church with the bride and groom or some other wedding member are at the other. For good candid shots of the people, a longer lens is better than using the wider lens and have to get close, possably breaking the mood of the shot. Being a 2.8, it's going to be just as fast as the 24-70. And with IS, it's even better for lower light situations.

I usually put the case the 70-200 2.8L comes in (it's the same case as the 100-400 lens) on my belt and use it to hold which ever lens I don't have on my camera. It takes some of the weight off my shoulders and is faster to swap lenses sometimes.

Mike

[DocFrankenstein]

You don't need 24-70 for the weddings.
It's too slow, it's not very wide.

If I were shooting, I'd get primes. 50/1.4 85/1.8? and maybe 16--35 or some wide angle prime.

* I have never shot a single event *

Good luck :lol:

[Quinn Porter]

I guess the question I am asking is wether the 24-70 is better for my needs or if I should go for the larger and more expensive 70-200?

Any comments on the "basic" kit would also be appreciated./Magnus


My advise would be to hold off on buying one of the 2.8 zooms. If you are going to spend over $1,000 on a lens, you should know it's going to meet your needs. Everyone here has an opinion on which to buy, but only your informed opinion matters. Shoot with the lenses in your basic kit, and you will soon realize which of the 2.8 zooms is more important to your shooting style.

As for your basic kit, the only concern I'd have is the 70-300/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM. It seems that most people that have used this lens agree that you are giving up some image quality (compared to the 70-200s) in return for the small size. If you've already factored this into your decision, then go ahead. If not, I'd search the forums for more info about this lens and make sure it's the one you want.

[Olegis]

I guess the question I am asking is wether the 24-70 is better for my needs or if I should go for the larger and more expensive 70-200?

I suggest to consider the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 - it's a bit soft at 2.8, but still very useful and it gets VERY sharp about f/4. The build quality and the AF motor is not up to the Canon L standards, but for 1/3 cost ($370 last time I checked the B&H site) it's one of the best lenses in terms of value/performance ratio. The 28-75 range is very nice for portraits and very useful in "fast actions" candid shots, as weddings. With primes you'll gain the best (or almost the best) optical quality and the ability to shoot in lower light levels, but sometimes the prime will be too limited because of the constant focal length - there will be occasions when you won't be able to zoom with your feet.

The 70-200 f/2.8 (I have the non-IS version) is real sweet, sharp even wide open, VERY fast and quiet AF. It's big and heavy, but helps you to produce very fine images, that's why I love this lens very much. Before you click the "Place order" button, you should ask yourself - what are you gonna shoot with it ? If the main purpose of the tele lens will be action (sports, weddings etc.) - you can then go with the non-IS version, because you'll need shutter speeds of 1/250s and faster in order to freeze the motion of the photographed object. At 1/250s you can safely handhold this lens without the IS, and with the help of simple monopod you'll be able to go all the way down to 1/60s.

[MagnusH]

You guys aren't makeing life easy for me :wink:.

As for the "basic" choices I have seen the results from the 17-85 and the
purple fringe. But some say it's there and others haven't seen it. I still think
it looks like a pretty good walk-around lense to have.

As for the 70-300 DO I have read some tests on it and there are some flare and
softening issues with it, but I am considering it anyways, since it is very compact
and light-weight lense.

Then the 24-70 vs 70-200 I think I have gotten enough arguments for either
so I am not sure what to do. Maybe I should wait and see or I might go for a
prime instead. The 50/1.4 is a possibility as well as the 85/1.8, but I really want the
versatility of the zooms...

Maybe I should just ask what is the optimal lense choice for a 20D when you have about
$3,000 to spend?

[scottbergerphoto]

The 24-70 f/2.8 is a great lense, very sharp and versatile. It is the "walk around lens" for many professsional photographers. If I don't need something wider, it's with me. Check out the 1D Mark II and the Photojournalism forums at www.Robgalbraith.com .
Regards,
Scott

[rick barclay]

My vote goes to the 24-70 2.8.
Proof is in the posting, I always say:

http://flashdaddee.com/roughboys.jpg

[markrodgers]

You guys aren't makeing life easy for me :wink:.

As for the "basic" choices I have seen the results from the 17-85 and the
purple fringe. But some say it's there and others haven't seen it. I still think
it looks like a pretty good walk-around lense to have.

As for the 70-300 DO I have read some tests on it and there are some flare and
softening issues with it, but I am considering it anyways, since it is very compact
and light-weight lense.

Then the 24-70 vs 70-200 I think I have gotten enough arguments for either
so I am not sure what to do. Maybe I should wait and see or I might go for a
prime instead. The 50/1.4 is a possibility as well as the 85/1.8, but I really want the
versatility of the zooms...

Maybe I should just ask what is the optimal lense choice for a 20D when you have about
$3,000 to spend?



I have bought the 70-200 f4L and certainly do not regret it, although as mentioned before with the 1.6crop factor this lense is really too long for most indoor/portrait work hence I am thinking of complimenting this lense with a 24-70 and either a 50mm f1.8II or 50mm f1.4 USM.

[davidwegs]

I know its new and not Canon but...

The Sigma 18-50 2.8 is excellent and extremely light.
I haven't worked out how you upload images into this forum yet so I cannot give an example. (let me know how and I will gladly upload one).

Just got this one, and think it will replace my 24-70L. in general use. It cost $499.00 @ B&H.

Forthe longer lens the 70-200IS is perfect for the crop and a lot sharper than the 70-300DO. It is however a lot heavier than the DO. The 70-200/4 is lighter and easier but need good light. That would mean a tripod/mono at weddings.

I do shoot weddings.

Just my thoughts.[/img]