Buying my first L glass, cant descide

If you had to pick between the 24-70 and the 70-200 f/2.8 (non is) which would it be and why?

Those are the 2 I'm trying to desice between. Currently I dont shoot anything specific. I would like to try some sports, but I also would like to have a good walk around lens that is versatile.

I'd probably pick the 24-70 because I use that range more.

You have the kit lens. Pick the zoom lens. In the end, you'll probably end up getting both.

With an XTI? I'd go for the 17-55 2.8 IS instead. You'll find 24-70 not wide enough at the wide end on a crop body.

Then I'd save up for the 70-200 2.8 IS.

hmm, maybe if you want to shoot sports, and its usually sunny, go for the 70-200 f/4L, save the extra 500, then buy the tamron 28-75, which is just about as good as the canon version. Then with the extra 100-200 bucks, buy yourself a nice bag or flash or something, or monopod!

sando wrote in post #5277686
With an XTI? You'll find 24-70 not wide enough at the wide end on a crop body.

Then I'd save up for the 70-200 2.8 IS.

I never thought one needed wide when using a "walkkaround" lens. That has been my experience. IMO, 24 is certainly wide enough, but it is your desiscion.

get both...eventually

but if i were to pick which to get first...it would definately be the 70-200
reach is good if you dont have anything in that range

Personally I'd go with the 24-70. The range is much more useful for every day use - the 70-200 is an awesome lens but it's not the kind of lens I leave on my camera often.

On a 1.6 I'd go with the 24-70, although I appreciate my 70-200 more I think.

Neither. The 24-70 is very heavy and the 70-200 f/2.8 is twice that! My back aches just thinking about it.

I sold my 24-70 and bought a 17-55. I prefer the 17-55 for general purpose, do-everything photography. There is a whole creative world available to focal lengths wider than 24mm.

Back to the lenses, I believe the IQ from my 17-55 is better than that from the 24-70. The L lens was a bit soft wide open in the 40-70 range, but my EF-S zoom is sharp everywhere.

A key question is what do you want to photograph? Different lenses have different strengths & weaknesses and the happiest photographers are those who have the right lenses for the task they're trying to do.

70-200 2.8

I say, 70-200.
Because, I will rather get 17-55 IS than 24-70.
But, I am not recommending 17-55 IS to you..(at least not directly ) otherwise you won't get your 1st L.

n1as wrote in post #5277949
Different lenses have different strengths & weaknesses and the happiest photographers are those who have the right lenses for the task they're trying to do.

Sounds like excellent advice.

I love my brick (24-70L) I wouldn't trade it for anything...well I'll buy a 24-105L to cover the longer end but keep the brick.

I think I've used my 70-200 2.8IS maybe 5x since I bought it new. not a very useful lens when your chasing a 17mth old but I wanted the focal range for versatility.

Dont even consider the 70-200 unless you have good glass to cover the short end zooms for daily use.

Neither. You can get a sweet set of faster, sharper, lighter, cheaper primes for equal or less.

Over $1000 bucks for a 24-70L? Come on, you can get a Sigma 30 1.4 and 85 1.8 for that price with over 400 bucks left in the bank. Pair those with your 50 1.8 and you're set. f/2.8 is for chumps.

$1000 for a 70-200 2.8? Again, psh. 200 2.8L/135L, 85 1.8, and again, you're set.

Get the 70-200 f 4 non IS. Its sharper than the 2.8 and spend the rest on a 50mm 1.4.