Canon 24-70 L 2.8 & 70-200 L 2.8 IS

[nathanphillips]

Just wondering if anyone has this combo, or would comment on it....
Do you think these 2 lenses alone could work for almost any situation / are a great bundle?
Planning on getting a 50 prime somewhere down the road, but just wondering about this combe for now...just looking for comments, etc!

[aam1234]

The 24-70 L 2.8 is the best thing next to sliced bread.

[nathanphillips]

hmm, thats what Ive been hearing...:cool:

[aam1234]

I want to kick myself for not getting it earlier. Messed up quite few shots b/c I didn't have it then.

[Marshall]

Just purchased the Tamron 28-75- 2.8,although not L glass good reviews against the Canon & put the money saved towards a wide angle,10-22, 16-35, or 15-30-what a cracking Portfolio of lenses ! Jealous or what ?

[Skip Souza]

Just the two lenses, a teleconverter & a nifty-fifty is something I would seriously like to try but there about 2,500 reasons holding me back at this time. Of course I would need two of everything 'cause I might not want to share with my wife.

[aam1234]

Just the two lenses, a teleconverter & a nifty-fifty is something I would seriously like to try but there about 2,500 reasons holding me back at this time. Of course I would need two of everything 'cause I might not want to share with my wife.

Be careful, your wife can read that too :D

[chris.bailey]

I have and love both but do find myself packing the 17-40 and 70-200, the 50mm 1.4 and the Canon 1.4x quite a bit but then I am a big fan of those 3. If I am just taking the camera in a top loader, more often than not it will have the 28-70 on it. The 28-70 and 70-200 is a nice pairing especially with a 1.4telecon but I personally would miss something a little wider.

[Brian B]

You can't do better than the two lenses you are looking at.

I have these two lenses and the 16-35 f/2.8. I use the 16-35 often for interior shots and the 24-70 for all around. I shoot local high school sports and for this the 70-200 is incredible.

http://home.comcast.net/~breault/images/images/sports/sport04a.htm

Chris - I'm looking into an extender and can't decide between the 1.4x and the 2x. What made you go with the 1.4x?

-Brian

[chris.bailey]

Chris - I'm looking into an extender and can't decide between the 1.4x and the 2x. What made you go with the 1.4x?

-Brian

The 1.4x is very nice on the 70-200 loosing only one stop and no perceptible impact on quality whereas I think the 2.0x has quite an impact on quality and you loose 2 stops. Plus I have the 100-400 as well so the 1.4x works in well with creating options. If you have a 70-200 2.8 then the 1.4x is a must have in the bag accessory in my view.

[Patrick 10D]

I have both of those and they are fantastic.

1.4x and 2x also work insanely well with the 70-200.

300 f/4L is coming next month.

[eosster]

The 24-70 L 2.8 is the best thing next to sliced bread.

I would have to disagree :lol:, maybe a good ale, lol. I need(maybe more wanting) one.

[Mills]

Have them both and use them 80% of the time. Love them.

[DSMITH131]

Thanks to this board i just got my 24-70L wednesday and just been playing around with it and WOW so WOW it is so big of a difference in it and 28-90mm and color is so much better than my tamron 70-210 2.8 Now i know why L glass cost so much more its worth it

[Deckyon]

Just wondering if anyone has this combo, or would comment on it....
Do you think these 2 lenses alone could work for almost any situation / are a great bundle?
Planning on getting a 50 prime somewhere down the road, but just wondering about this combe for now...just looking for comments, etc!

I have these 2 lenses. Awesome combination. Down the road, skip the 50mm and get the 1.4x Extender II instead. It will push that 70-200 to almost 300mm and still be very sharp. I also have the 16-35mm f/2.8 L as well and love it. I can't be happier with lenses, and the 70-200mm is on my camera more than any other lens.

At the following post, I have some examples posted of the 70-200. Click on the thumbnails for larger images.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=62614

[Longwatcher]

After those two lenses the only way to go is wider or longer. The 16-35 on the wide end and either the 100-400 or a prime on the long end. But with the 70-200 you may find you need nothing longer, but even the 24-70 won't make it occasionally on the wide side.

Just my opinion,

[nathanphillips]

Wow, thanks for the replies!
Im looking to buy once, and get it over with.
Right now, looking at a Eos 20d body, 24-70 L 2.8, 70-200 L IS, 1.4 extender, a 580ex flash, and a battery grip.
If the extender with the 70-200 is not long enough for me, I will end up getting the 100-400 sometime down the road.
But, I guess I am pretty happy with this combination...just have to wait now till my pay stub comes, as I will be spending a tad more than I thought I would be...:cry:

[Mike Panic]

my 24-70L showed up yesterday :D

i did do a full review of the tamron 28-75 though http://www.iphotoforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13309

[MDJAK]

Here's a sample with the 70-200 F2.8 IS taken today at the Bronx Zoo. This is with the 1.4 teleconverter II

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v259/mdjak/WI1A0386.jpg

[John57]

We've got both these lenses - my wife is a freelance photographer ..... if I tried to sneak these two lenses away without her noticing she would kill me ! It has got so bad I have had to buy another 24-70 otherwise I would never get to use it....

We also use a 17-40 to compliment the two lenses you mention. All produce really sharp images and are excellent.

[Amstaff]

Have both on a 300D and at this point I would not part with them. They are such an asset. Waiting on the 10-22 to come...

[nathanphillips]

MDJAK, thanks for the pic!
Im really interested in seeing pics of this combo (70-200 2.8 IS with 1.4 extender, like you posted). Do you have anymore? I just want to get a feel for how well it would work for wildlife / nature, etc...

[ska60te]

Two great lens!! They cover a wide range of shooting situations, I also have the 16-35,50 1.4,also you are off to a great start!!

[mjordan]

I have the 24-70 2.8L and 70-200 2.8L IS and I agree with the others that they are both excellent lenses. I have the Canon 2x extender but haven't used it on either one (just the 100-400) yet. I have done plenty of outdoor shots with them. I also do indoor still life with and without Kenko close up tubes. Here are a couple of shots:

70-200 2.8L IS (IS turned off) with a 20mm Kenko tube:
http://www.sitnprettyphoto.com/display/puff5621.jpg

24-70 2.8L (no close up tube) of a Daffodille in soda water:
http://www.sitnprettyphoto.com/display/daff5522.jpg

Both lenses do close up work very well and they work just as well at scenic.

Mike

[Rokkorfan]

If you are buying the 20D then I think you should think again about your lenses. I have all three 2.8's and on the 20D the 24-70 may be a bit long to be your wide angle. I would recommend that you get the 20mm f/1.8 sigma (if you are tight for cash - $370) or the 17-40mm f/4 in addition to the 24-70mm and 70-200mm. The 1.6x crop factor makes the 24mm end of your 24-70mm only 38.4mm - not really very wide.

[SkipD]

I have the 16-35 f2.8, 24-70 f2.8, and the 70-200 f2.8 IS. These three lenses will probably do virtually anything I could imagine asking of them.

For interior work, the 16-35 is usually my choice. For walk-around or general studio work, the 24-70 is my starting point. The 70-200 is what I pick when I need something with a little reach, even for close-in work. All three lenses can work at amazingly short distances for closeups.

I'm tempted to get the 1.4 extender rather than another several pounds to haul around.

[MDJAK]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v259/mdjak/WI1A0396.jpg

This is another shot with the 70-200 f2.8 IS (on) with 580EX from about 20 yards away, indoors. (Levels changed and slight unsharp mask applied.)

I'm not well versed in posting pictures. I don't know the proper resizing to upload them, so if they appear too small (or too large) forgive me.

[MDJAK]

This is shot in the Congo exhibit, dark where I'm standing, through thick glass, no flash, 70-200 1.4 extender, about 20 feet away.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v259/mdjak/WI1A0394.jpg