Which lens would you suggest

From one rookie to another, save your money for now and just get a 18-55 and a 55-250 until you figure out what you want to do and what you like doing best. After a while, you will realize where your interest are taking you and your skills will get to the point where you can make a more educated decision.

The very first lens I ever bought was the 50mm f1.8-- I had it for over 4 years!! I loved it, Very versatile and it will totally force you to think about composition. Why don't you give it a go? it's cheap enough to get and cheap enough not to feel like crap when you drop it! LOL

Brandman wrote in post #14054616
let me rephrase my question forget my skill level, just because I havent chosen one particular area of focus doesn't mean i'm not knowledgeable or lack skill level to take pictures with great composition. I'm looking for a sharp, versatile, fast lens. out of the 2 lenses that i have mentioned which one fits the bill of being sharp, versatile, and fast?

it has nothing to do with your skill level...it's the fact that you don't know what you want...you posted about two entirely different lenses...so the advice to take more shots is so you can figure out which one you'd rather have...

both lenses will be sharp, versatile, and fast...

you're basically asking, what should i use a hammer or a screwdriver...the problem is you don't know if in your other hand you're holding a nail, or a screw...first figure out what's in your hand...

Brandman wrote in post #14054515
I am a new and ever learning photographer and I am taking my first dive into L class lenses. my choices are the 24-70 2.8L and the 70-200 2.8L IS II. Currently in my bag i have the nifty fifty 1.8, and 28-135 2.5-5.6. Which lens would you suggest i get. I really havent found my niche yet so I lean from one end of the spectrum to the other when it comes to what i like to shoot.

I like to answer questions as posed. You want to buy an L lens go for it.

If the range of your 28-135 is used more on the lower end go for the 24-70l if however yourself more on the topside go for the 70-200

And with that said be aware the 2.8 on that model is huge...I understand the f4 to be smaller in size....so then it becomes what apertures you use more.

Too if you like your 50 you may love the 35l.......I do

Have fun and enjoy your L lens whichever you choose.

chrisandaivi wrote in post #14063790
The very first lens I ever bought was the 50mm f1.8-- I had it for over 4 years!! I loved it, Very versatile and it will totally force you to think about composition. Why don't you give it a go? it's cheap enough to get and cheap enough not to feel like crap when you drop it! LOL

i have that lens

i went out shooting today and kept an eye on what focal lengths i was using, and have decided that the 70-200 will be better for me. thank you so much for all of your responses

We are kidding our selves...we should be honest with this poor guy. He obviously has the disease.

Brandman, it doesn't matter which lens you buy because you will only buy the other one soon after anyway...then you will buy another...and another....and another ........and another and some time down the line you will have no family left they, will have given up on you and you will be living in a cardboard box under the overpass with the rest of us. You will have $1000's worth of lenses and still crave more...........and thus it will be.

28-300 L

People are giving you shard time. I have both lenses you asked about. I think the 70-200 2.8 ll is the more outstanding of the two because it,SO much newer . Both are very nice and I agree you will most likely own both in the future.
The 70-200 can do portraits and most sports very well as wellas street. It will draw a lot of attention no matter where you use it.i feel it,s as sharp as many of my primes. I think you will be very happy with it. Only lacks wide FOV.
I would go for the 70-200 first. Just my opinion.

another vote for the 70-200mm 2.8 IS II. basically you'll have a stabilized 2.8 prime for every focal length between 70 and 200mm. my friend had a 24-70, I was never that impressed with its sharpness. Now that the 24-70 Mark II is here, the MTF chart looks like really promising. I'll definitely wait for reviews before picking this one up. It's also worth keeping an eye on the new Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC USD

RAW RAW RAW wrote in post #14065478
We are kidding our selves...we should be honest with this poor guy. He obviously has the disease.

Brandman, it doesn't matter which lens you buy because you will only buy the other one soon after anyway...then you will buy another...and another....and another ........and another and some time down the line you will have no family left they, will have given up on you and you will be living in a cardboard box under the overpass with the rest of us. You will have $1000's worth of lenses and still crave more...........and thus it will be.

Truest input so far.

Brandman wrote in post #14054616
let me rephrase my question forget my skill level, just because I havent chosen one particular area of focus doesn't mean i'm not knowledgeable or lack skill level to take pictures with great composition. I'm looking for a sharp, versatile, fast lens. out of the 2 lenses that i have mentioned which one fits the bill of being sharp, versatile, and fast?

I have both 24-70mm f/2.8 and 70-200mm f/4 IS USM, and 70-200mm f/4 IS USM is sharper and faster.

You can get the 70-200mm now. If your budget is ok, you should get the f/2.8 version. The f/2.8 is much heavier than the f/4 version, but it will help you in low light situation. Also, you need to consider to get the one with IS. In short, you should get 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM (either Mark I or Mark II)

In term of "versatitle", it really depends on what your photoshoot session.

I use my 16-35mm for my landscape work
I use my 24-70mm for my events work
I use my 70-200mm w/ 1.4 extender for wild life (birds, etc..)
I also use my 70-200mm for studio work on models
I use my 50mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.2 for portrait work indoor/outdoor
I also use my 85mm f/1.2 for low-light situation

So, when I go out for a shoot, I pack the lens for that shoot.

Prime lenses are usually sharper than zoom lenses, but they are not versatitle
.
One-size-fit-all zoom lens is very versatile, but it is not good in both IQ and low light (not fast: aperture > f/2.8)

I have both lenses and I find that my 24-70 stays on my camera most of the time. I love it. I wish I had purchased a 300 mm lens rather than the 70-200 mm as it still does not get as close as I would like to the action when shooting sports. Since each lens is great to have in your bag...buy both

Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L or don't forget the fantastic (and a little cheaper) Canon 24-105 f/4 L IS