IM STUCK

Ok people of the Lens section, I have a dilemma. I have 1300$ to spend on new glass, and I am stuck between two lenses. 24-70 2.8 L and the 70-200 2.8 L (non IS). I shoot mainly portraits and street photography. When I do studio shots I dont have too much room. I need some help.
Thanks,
Nick

Well from that brief description I'd say the 24-70 F/2.8, it'd be killer for portraits in tight spaces, good in low-ish light, and a nice walkaround length. What do you need/want the 70-200 for?

You could always do a compromise and go non-L *GASP*, do something like the tamron 28-75, sigma 24-70, sigma 17-70, etc + pick up a 70-200 F/4 or Sigma 70-200 F/2.8

Just a thought...

Maybe go the prime route...

Canon 50 1.4, Canon 85 1.8, and Sigma 30 1.4...

Or Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 and Tamron 28-75 2.8

Me personaly, I think the 70-200 2.8 non IS is a better portrait lens. Better bokeh and more versitile IMOH. But for the indoor portraits it might not be your best, but at the studio thats the only lens we use for indoor portraits (chest up) so if you can try a 70-200 and SEE if 70mm will work in the space you have I would HIGHLY recomend it. (I'm upgrading VERY soon to the 2.8 version)

Hell... spend 80 bucks and use the 50mm f/1.8 for portraits... get the 70-200 f/4 IS or f/2.8 non-is as your street lens....

HArd to beat a set of top quality primes for portrait only use I reckon. Saying that, if you are in a controlled situation then the 70-200mm 4.0 is a cracking portrait lens, but obviously below 70mm or tight spaces well forget it. The 24-70mm L is Ok if you get a decent copy, but I fancy the IQ and pop from any of the usual primes would kick its heavy ass.

You don't mention your camera. If you have an APS-C model, the 24-70 will be fine for portraiture; if you use FF, you may want longer there. Also, what's your street shooting style? What focal lengths are you currently favouring there?

Sounds like the 24-70mm f/2.8L is the natural choice. The other won't fair well in your studio at all.

If you have a FF, then the 24-70 will do well for close area portraits and street photography.
I think if you have a cropped senso, then even the 24-70 is too long. Maybe a 17-50range and a 85mm prime for portraits.

nrellas wrote in post #2141971
Ok people of the Lens section, I have a dilemma. I have 1300$ to spend on new glass, and I am stuck between two lenses. 24-70 2.8 L and the 70-200 2.8 L (non IS). I shoot mainly portraits and street photography. When I do studio shots I dont have too much room. I need some help.
Thanks,
Nick

the 24-70L would be perfect for what you are describing, imo.

ed rader

Jon wrote in post #2142067
You don't mention your camera. If you have an APS-C model, the 24-70 will be fine for portraiture; if you use FF, you may want longer there. Also, what's your street shooting style? What focal lengths are you currently favouring there?

Thanks everyone for the help. I shoot with a MK IIN and my fav. lense is my 50 1.4, so it generally stays on there for both portraits and walk around stuff. I guess Ive got some thinking to do.

-24-70 or 70-200 2.8 + 85 1.8

Also, I know its been asked a thousand times, but is the 70-200 2.8 worth the 500 more dollars than the f4?

I thought you were going to say your hand is stuck in your lens hood or something.

nrellas wrote in post #2142674
Also, I know its been asked a thousand times, but is the 70-200 2.8 worth the 500 more dollars than the f4?

I had the 70-200 f/4L for a year. It is a great lens.

I sold it and a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and added $200 for the 70-200 f/2.8L.

Would I do the same thing again?

In a heartbeat, but I shoot with it at f/2.8 over 90% of the time. YMMV.

Regards,
Jeff

nrellas wrote in post #2142674
Also, I know its been asked a thousand times, but is the 70-200 2.8 worth the 500 more dollars than the f4?

if you need f2.8 it certainly is. otherwise IQ is comparable and the F4 is much smaller.

also, the f4 is superb wide open.

ed rader

Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 is superb wide open as well!