Which would you upgrade first?

Hi guys,

I've been shooting a fair few weddings recently and things are starting to pick up nicely. After upgrading to a 5D MKII from a 7D I lost my Tamron 17-50 F2.8 as it doesn't work with the 5D.

Anyway, I've been getting along just fine with the lenses I currently have but would lo to change both of my primary lenses for the newer versions.

70-200 F4 IS ---> 70-200 F2.8 IS II
24-105 F4 IS ---> 24-70 MKII

So if you were me which would you go for first? Like I say, I don't 'need' either of them but both would certainly help out with low light and for creating more aesthetically pleasing images with the depth of field.
Both lenses seem to be around the same price (£1500) in the UK so I'd like to hear your thoughts.

Thanks.

I would go with 70-200 F2.8 IS because I'll use it more than the 24-70.

Looking at your gearlist, I'd ratherspend the money on a fast wide-ish prime first....something like a Sigma 35/35L.

More versatile and you'll have a much rounded kit suitable for any situation.

Also for the price of 24-70II, you can probably get Sigma 35 + Tamron 24-70 VC, makes a hell lot more business sense to me.

Use the exif data from your last 5 weddings to chart and see what you use most, then get that.

I'd get the 24-70L it's just about the sharpest lens made

OK, I agree for weddings the 24-70 might be an excellent choice BUT "...about the sharpest lens made..." ? Not hardly.

Lil Red Wolf wrote in post #15890398
I'd get the 24-70L it's just about the sharpest lens made

As long as you dont count primes, the version II zooms, and anything made by zeiss.

gonzogolf wrote in post #15890431
As long as you dont count primes, the version II zooms, and anything made by zeiss.

The 24-70 II IS one of the version II zooms.

OP, I'd get the 24-70 II. The 70-200 move from f/4 IS to f/2.8 IS gets you one thing: f/2.8. Well, and a bit more weight.

Moving from 24-105 to 24-70 II gets you a sharper lens, a lot less distortion AND (useable) f/2.8. At the expense of size, weight, 82mm filters, the 71-105 range and IS. On second thought....

Yeah it's certainly tricky. I'd say I use them both around equally. I'd love to change both together but that's a little pricey. I'd like the ability to stop down to F2.8 mainly for the DOF more than anything else. I'm happy enough bumping the ISO to achieve the right shutter speeds at the minute but the ability to single somebody else in focus within a cluttered group of people is more appealing to me.

I'll look into the primes too. It's something I hadn't considered.

i bought the 70-200 2.8 IS II about a month ago and im still blown away with this lens. One of the best lenses made. I'd upgrade the f4 70-200 personally.

gonzogolf wrote in post #15890388
Use the exif data from your last 5 weddings to chart and see what you use most, then get that.

Bingo...I always look at my shooting history when deciding on a new lens.

gasrocks wrote in post #15890410
OK, I agree for weddings the 24-70 might be an excellent choice BUT "...about the sharpest lens made..." ? Not hardly.

gonzogolf wrote in post #15890431
As long as you dont count primes, the version II zooms, and anything made by zeiss.

If i recall correctly; when the 24-70 mkII came out; they compared it across the board with every lens (primes included) out at the time; and the 24-70 actually tested better.

A specific instance, the sharpest Canon lens lensrental had at 24mm was Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II, and sharpest @ 70mm was 70-200 f/2.8 mkII.

the 24-70f/2.8 mkii was sharper than both; all wide open. (The prime @ f/3.5 of course)
http://www.lensrentals​.com …-f2-8-ii-resolution-tests

so; conclusion being the 24-70mkii is likely the sharpest lens you can get period in it's focal range, zeiss and primes included. (Someone should look up numbers to compare for the new sigma 35mm..)

w0m wrote in post #15893345
so; conclusion being the 24-70mkii is likely the sharpest lens you can get period in it's focal range, zeiss and primes included. (Someone should look up numbers to compare for the new sigma 35mm..)

My reply was to the suggestion of the 24-70L not the mark II being the sharpest, as evidenced by my mentioning the II in my reply.

70-200 IMO.

the 24-105 can rely on flash, but 70-200 not necessarily depending on how far the subjects are.

.... but before I upgrade, I would get another body and another flash. that's what I would do before upgrading lenses.

Yeah fair comments regarding the flash and shooting distance.

I do have another body actually, it's a 7D that my friend/helper uses for secret candids on the day. If my body ever fails I will just use that instead.