Liking less my 24-70mm f2.8 II and 70-200mm f2.8 IS II

^^ See it all depends. I am not saying zooms are bad. I have been mainly a zoom guy. I started with dSLR with 100-400L being my first lens. Then I got 400mm f5.6 and had both for a while. Both had their plus and minus and I liked them both. Then I moved to 500mm f4 IS and 300mm f2.8 IS combo. Both great at what they do. Always wished I had zoom for sports and picked sigma 120-300mm f2.8 non OS but it was bad bad compared to canon prime. Prime gave me fewer shots but much better. I am looking at the newer sigma 120-300mm f2.8 OS sports as it has quite good reviews and provides flexibility compared to primes as I can cover things with 1 camera/lens rather than having 300/400mm f2.8 and 70-200mm f2.8 on another body.

But for regular stuff (kids, family) I see f1.4/f2 primes give me better image quality. It could be just the pop from wider apertures. Inside I find f2.8 gets slower even with higher ISO bodies and I rather shoot wider aperture and lower ISO to remove the clutter and focus more on the subject.

Since I picked up Fuji XT1, I may sell the zooms to pay for it and some other toys. I don't know. 70-200mm f2.8 would be handy for kids sports/events.

bobbyz wrote in post #17135363
^^ See it all depends. I am not saying zooms are bad. I have been mainly a zoom guy. I started with dSLR with 100-400L being my first lens. Then I got 400mm f5.6 and had both for a while. Both had their plus and minus and I liked them both. Then I moved to 500mm f4 IS and 300mm f2.8 IS combo. Both great at what they do. Always wished I had zoom for sports and picked sigma 120-300mm f2.8 non OS but it was bad bad compared to canon prime. Prime gave me fewer shots but much better. I am looking at the newer sigma 120-300mm f2.8 OS sports as it has quite good reviews and provides flexibility compared to primes as I can cover things with 1 camera/lens rather than having 300/400mm f2.8 and 70-200mm f2.8 on another body.

But for regular stuff (kids, family) I see f1.4/f2 primes give me better image quality. It could be just the pop from wider apertures. Inside I find f2.8 gets slower even with higher ISO bodies and I rather shoot wider aperture and lower ISO to remove the clutter and focus more on the subject.

Since I picked up Fuji XT1, I may sell the zooms to pay for it and some other toys. I don't know. 70-200mm f2.8 would be handy for kids sports/events.

Been there done that. The non OS model 120-300 is not up to snuff with the newer sport model and OS model. I tested my OS model to my 300 2.8 IS v1 and the difference was neglible. In lightroom it took a bump on the canon in contrast to a +10 and blacks to a -12 and sharpness up from the standard 25 to a 35 to match the canon at 25. Then it was so close it was impossible to tell at 1:1 and at 50% no way you could see a difference.

You say the 70-200 would be good for sports/events but I say the 120-300 is better. Only difference is the weight but I carry mine and handhold it no problems through 2hrs worth of football games.

And the rest.... indoor stuff, kids stuff, my stuff... ya primes. I'm already figuring this out and adjusting my kit to meet those needs.

One thing I'm trying now is a slower F4 zoom setup for when I'm vacationing paired with one fast prime. See how I like that.

Ultimately this is my kit or will be in the near future:

5D3 ultimate body
6D vacation body
14 - my wide fun lens, astro stuff (when vacationing) car stuff
24 - indoor wide lens (or i may keep 35, will be one or the other for me)
50 - birthday party lens portrait kid indoor stuff
85 - longer birthday party portrait kit indoor stuff
135 - gymnastics, dance on stage where indoors lower light need all the shutter I can get
8-15 - ok... this is just my fun lens is all.
16-35 F4 IS - vacationing general walk around
70-200 F4 IS - vacationing general walk around
120-300 - sports, cheer, dance recitals, choir events, graduations, distance items

I really want to swap the 35/85/135 for a 24/50/135 but there is no way I can get rid of the 85. it's that awesome.

But seriously I've been in your shoes in a similiar way... I had both 24-70/70-200 tamron VC models and I used them alot when I only had a 35 and that was my only 3 lenses.

It's all your fault... you sold me the 85 and when I got it... never touched the 70-200 and then I started to use the 35 more also and now never touch the 24-70.

Same boat... different shoes.

I went through this with my 70-200 MKII. Still needed a 70-200 2.8 sometimes...but not enough to justify such an expensive lens. Went with a used Tamron 70-200 VC, and with the price difference picked up a 135L.

Full disclosure- I also have an 85L v1. Between the 85L and 135L I simply don't need the zoom very often. For racetracks I prefer the 70-300L.

As for the 24-70II, I know it's a very popular lens, but for me, a 50mm prime and 24-105L are a better combo for vacation/portrait needs. YMMV of course depending on what you plan to do with the lens.

gocolts wrote in post #17135419
I went through this with my 70-200 MKII. Still needed a 70-200 2.8 sometimes...but not enough to justify such an expensive lens. Went with a used Tamron 70-200 VC, and with the price difference picked up a 135L.

Full disclosure- I also have an 85L v1. Between the 85L and 135L I simply don't need the zoom very often. For racetracks I prefer the 70-300L.

As for the 24-70II, I know it's a very popular lens, but for me, a 50mm prime and 24-105L are a better combo for vacation/portrait needs. YMMV of course depending on what you plan to do with the lens.

that's the thing with these damn lenses, too many scenarios where one has the advantage over the others. Sometimes I need the 70-200F2.8, a lot of times, I'de rather 70-200F4. That damn 135F2... I'm looking to buy another more compact version for the sony A7r............

I hardly ever "need" the F2.8 of the 24-200 lenses, but I would feel so naked without them.

bobbyz wrote in post #17135363
^^ See it all depends. I am not saying zooms are bad. I have been mainly a zoom guy. I started with dSLR with 100-400L being my first lens. Then I got 400mm f5.6 and had both for a while. Both had their plus and minus and I liked them both. Then I moved to 500mm f4 IS and 300mm f2.8 IS combo. Both great at what they do. Always wished I had zoom for sports and picked sigma 120-300mm f2.8 non OS but it was bad bad compared to canon prime. Prime gave me fewer shots but much better. I am looking at the newer sigma 120-300mm f2.8 OS sports as it has quite good reviews and provides flexibility compared to primes as I can cover things with 1 camera/lens rather than having 300/400mm f2.8 and 70-200mm f2.8 on another body.

But for regular stuff (kids, family) I see f1.4/f2 primes give me better image quality. It could be just the pop from wider apertures. Inside I find f2.8 gets slower even with higher ISO bodies and I rather shoot wider aperture and lower ISO to remove the clutter and focus more on the subject.

Since I picked up Fuji XT1, I may sell the zooms to pay for it and some other toys. I don't know. 70-200mm f2.8 would be handy for kids sports/events.

You let me know if you sell that 70-200.. Ready to buy

bobbyz wrote in post #17135363
I am looking at the newer sigma 120-300mm f2.8 OS sports as it has quite good reviews and provides flexibility compared to primes as I can cover things with 1 camera/lens rather than having 300/400mm f2.8 and 70-200mm f2.8 on another body.

Please post up a review or something if you pick one up. I was going to buy the regular 120-300 and was not impressed on my in store trial.

I am opposite. Had both the 85L and 70-200ii for a while. At first preferred the 85L for the unique look but it soon get tiresome and the AF and CA started to bother me. Also the relatively far focusing distance means I could not get tight headshots with it. Finally I sold it.

Although heavy and it has a smaller aperture, the 70-200ii has taken some of my very best shots due to its great AF, sharpness, versatile range and the compressed perspective.

I feel your pain.

Im constantly annoyed with both lenses because I don't know which to keep. And at the same time I'm afraid to sell one if i regret it.

the flying moose wrote in post #17136392
Please post up a review or something if you pick one up. I was going to buy the regular 120-300 and was not impressed on my in store trial.

If you would like I can send you samples of the 120-300 OS non sport @ 300mm 2.8 vs the canon 300 2.8L IS v1 at 2.8 so you can see the difference.

It was an easy choice for me to sell my 3500 dollar canon and move to the 2,000 dollar sigma. Haven't looked back since.

Avo wrote in post #17136743
I am opposite. Had both the 85L and 70-200ii for a while. At first preferred the 85L for the unique look but it soon get tiresome and the AF and CA started to bother me. Also the relatively far focusing distance means I could not get tight headshots with it. Finally I sold it.

Although heavy and it has a smaller aperture, the 70-200ii has taken some of my very best shots due to its great AF, sharpness, versatile range and the compressed perspective.

it's really a fantastic lens, and I agree with this sentiment, but it's such a chore to drag it along, that it feels like work. I brought an old 135mm F2.8 to legoland the other week. Sure, the IQ isnt as good, nor the flexibility, but imagine carrying 1.5 kilo around for the whole day, not to mention the sheer size, vs a scant 300 grams......

Charlie wrote in post #17137014
it's really a fantastic lens, and I agree with this sentiment, but it's such a chore to drag it along, that it feels like work. I brought an old 135mm F2.8 to legoland the other week. Sure, the IQ isnt as good, nor the flexibility, but imagine carrying 1.5 kilo around for the whole day, not to mention the sheer size, vs a scant 300 grams......

I've carried my 120-300 on vacation at some zoo's for hours. Do that and then the 70-200 2.8 feels light

my new 70-200 F4 IS feels like a toy. I think my sigma 85 is heavier lol

Talley wrote in post #17137063
I've carried my 120-300 on vacation at some zoo's for hours. Do that and then the 70-200 2.8 feels light

my new 70-200 F4 IS feels like a toy. I think my sigma 85 is heavier lol

well, your youngest still has a stroller right? that's like cheating for photogs

The only bag I had was my camera bag, no strollers, no one watching my stuff, and going on all the rides. It's bad enough just walking through the amusement park the whole day empty handed. Toss in some gear....

you do have a history of being fickle and making drastic changes to your gear line-up Bobby .

Charlie wrote in post #17137154
well, your youngest still has a stroller right? that's like cheating for photogs

The only bag I had was my camera bag, no strollers, no one watching my stuff, and going on all the rides. It's bad enough just walking through the amusement park the whole day empty handed. Toss in some gear....

I hear ya it's a pita.

but yes and no. stroller was a chico umbrella and no place for the camera bag to go. I use a Street Walker Pro bag and it has thick shoulder straps so it makes it a tad comfy.

A few years ago, I had my camera lens hidden at the bottom compartment of my stroller. I wandered off 20 feet to take some photos of my kid. Well, when I turned around, the stroller was stolen. Never found the stroller nor my pair of camera lens.