Lens Comparison - 24-70 2.8 vs. 70-200 2.8

[Dubsta]

Ok....here we go again.

I just tested out a friends 70-200 2.8f and I love it. I can get fairly close to people and fit alot of them in the shot with it. It's not like I have to be really far back.

My main reason for deciding between these two lenses is for weddings. That is why I was looking at the 24-70 2.8f to begin with. BUT, I won't only be using this lens for weddings...and right now, I can only afford one L glass lens.

So my question to all you is this...should I make do with the 70-200 for its use in weddings and everything else, and get the zoom and other great qualities of this lens for outside of weddings...than to pick up the 24-70 just for the main reason of doing wedding photography.

I have my other wide angle lens that can be used for the other type of shots as well.

My style of wedding photography is going to be photojournalistic, so it won't be as much of a posed shot...I think the 70-200 would be great for this....

Thoughts? Also, would there be much of a quality difference between these two lenses? They are both L glass, and both 2.8....

Please help me! I want to make an educated decision...

[Citizensmith]

On a 300D I'd much rather have the 24-70 for weddings. The reason being if you get the 70-200 you'll be using the 18-55 for all the group photos and that is a very average lens to use for wedding work.

[Dubsta]

I will be upgrading to the 20D soon if that matters...

But I can see your point. These are the things I have to think about...but maybe I could pick up something else a little less expensive for the group shots.

Thanks for the reply!

[Dubsta]

Anyone else have any input?

[Jon]

Which one will pay for itsself faster? get that one, and you'll be closer to the time when you can have them both . . . If you're getting paid for the weddings, I'd expect the 24-70 to be more profitable, therefore the one to get.

[Andy_T]

On a 300D I'd much rather have the 24-70 for weddings. The reason being if you get the 70-200 you'll be using the 18-55 for all the group photos and that is a very average lens to use for wedding work.

Hehe ... and you won't even have an average lens in the 70+ range , so you won't think about shooting in that range.

Take a look at the 350$ Tamron 28-75/2.8 XR DI as addition to the 70-200/2.8 to have everything covered in good quality at an acceptable price.

Best regards,
Andy

[CyberDyneSystems]

Should you get the 24-70mm,.. or the 70-200mm??

Yes :mrgreen:


they both do different jobs,. so they don't compare. You prefer the one that uses the focal ranges you use more often.

I need longer more often than I need shorter,. so the 70-200mm fits my needs better,. what are your needs?

[Dubsta]

I'm not really sure, I like the fast of the 2.8 and the quality of both lenses, the 24-70mm is the bread and butter of wedding photography...so maybe that is my choice...but, I will only be doing like 1-3 weddings a month.

I think maybe the 24-70 is the choice for weddings, so my first choice...then I can just get the 70-200 later on.

[cactusclay]

I use a 17-40, 50, and a 85 for weddings, but there have been times when I wished for one lens to do it all instead of multiple bodies and I have considered the 24-70 many times. Every now and then I find myself looking over the Reviews of it and some people like it and think it is as sharp as primes and it's sharp a 2.8 and others say it's neither of those. I checked one out in a camera shop and found it to be slightly soft at 2.8, but in the back of my mind I keep thinking that maybe some of the people that reviewed it were right and there are some copies that are sharp at 2.8. I may go and try out some again and see if I can find one, some day. As far as the 70-200 2.8 goes, I think it would come in handy doing weddings as well, but as much as I use the 17-40, I would have a difficult time using only a 70-200.

[Spod]

I have both lenses and use them both equally! I realise that's not much help for you, but which ever you decide to get, you won't be disappointed. The 24-70 has become my main general purpose lens - it lives on the front of my camera. Next in line is the 70-200. I love them both.

[HKFEVER]

I have 24-70 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8 IS. Both are excellent lens. But for wedding, 24-70 is better, because I saw so many wedding photographer use 24-70 in HK.

[Mike Panic]

if you can only afford one, buy the 24-70, its cheaper then the 70-200 f/2.8 IS and you can use it for the whole wedding and reception... that 70-200 isn't going to cut it in smaller reception halls

[mgchan]

I'd just picked up the 24-70 from B&H, and it is one sweet lens!

I thought it was heavy when removing it from the box, however, once attached to my 20D... it's like walking around with a dumb-bell... at approximately 3.6 lbs total weight!!!