24-70 vs higher ISO

I shoot a lot of indoor sports and entertainment events, using my 70-200 2.8 IS and my 24-105. I use a 1Dmk3 for sports and often push the ISO to 3200 and do a minimum amount of cleanup using Noise Ninja.

Do I really need a 24-70 2.8 brick with today's ISO capabilities in both my 5dMk2 and 1DMk3....

Tried a 85 1.8 and like it but need the flexibility of a zoom

Thanks....

You have a 24-105 and you probably have the answer already. Are there times when the 105 has failed you? Do you want a bit more bokeh in your images? If not, stay with your present gear and be happy.

If you can give up the IS and deal with the extra weight, you may want to consider the 24-105. Rent one and give it a try.

pushing the ISO is not always the answer. Sometimes you need both the Higher ISO and the fast aperture to get the shot.

so in lamen terms, YES. but it is up to the individual to see if they want it/need it. Personally, I will never buy anything less than an 2.8 lens again.

just replaced my 105L (5d2 kit) with 70L coz of the extra speed it gives me plus more bokeh.

engrmariano wrote in post #9679506
just replaced my 105L (5d2 kit) with 70L coz of the extra speed it gives me plus more bokeh.

no such thing... there is a 24-105 4L, and the 70-200 2.8L (IS/non IS) but not either of what you are saying. If you going to pay for something like that, at least get it right.

There is no noticable difference in focus speed between the 24-105 and the 24-70 that I can tell with a 7D in the same lousy venues (shooting ISO3200-1600). I think the gating factor for you is will you get enough DOF if you open up the aperture more than what the 24-105 now allows. Even with my 24-70, I still find myself shooting at 4.5-5 to get the DOF I need to make the shots look good. With your 1.3X crop factor vs my 1.6, you'll have even a shallower DOF than I do.

bsmotril wrote in post #9679543
There is no noticable difference in focus speed between the 24-105 and the 24-70 that I can tell with a 7D in the same lousy venues (shooting ISO3200-1600). I think the gating factor for you is will you get enough DOF if you open up the aperture more than what the 24-105 now allows. Even with my 24-70, I still find myself shooting at 4.5-5 to get the DOF I need to make the shots look good. With your 1.3X crop factor vs my 1.6, you'll have even a shallower DOF than I do.

you dont shoot sports... shooting sports is all about as fast as you can get, because you need to get the shot. rarely do sport shooters shoot anything but wide open.

canonnoob wrote in post #9679519
no such thing... there is a 24-105 4L, and the 70-200 2.8L (IS/non IS) but not either of what you are saying. If you going to pay for something like that, at least get it right.

come on Dave, you know what he meant. he was just abbreviating!

CosmoKid wrote in post #9679559
come on Dave, you know what he meant. he was just abbreviating!

lol man Im being a jerk today huh? I woke up on the wrong side..

Why not set you current lenses this way and see what you like better in terms of noise.

1. 70-200 set at 70 mm and F 2.8 (IS off)
2. 24-105 set at 70 mm F 4.0 (w/ IS on)

If they make similar images, save your money. If the first one gives images you are more happy with, rent the 24-70 2.8 and make sure its a good fit. Other that that, posters can give you the boilerplate replies, but that is about all.

"Indoors" is a somewhat nebulous term, since my 'indoors' and your 'indoors' likely have differing amounts (and even type) of light. It really comes down to the conditions you shoot at.

canonnoob wrote in post #9679519
no such thing... there is a 24-105 4L, and the 70-200 2.8L (IS/non IS) but not either of what you are saying. If you going to pay for something like that, at least get it right.

which one is "no such thing"?... the topic is 24-105 4L IS & 24-70 2.8L, of course im talking about...

engrmariano wrote in post #9679588
which one is "no such thing"?... the topic is 24-105 4L IS & 24-70 2.8L, of course im talking about...

no such thing as the 105L and the 70L.... I was busting your chops.. cheer up.

I think with your camera that ISO bumping is the way to go. You wont pick up all that much on the extra stop with the 24-70 considering the cost you will incur. Put it into glass that will get you a range you don't already have.

MadisonPhotography wrote in post #9679288
Do I really need a 24-70 2.8 brick with today's ISO capabilities in both my 5dMk2 and 1DMk3....

There is no substitute for fast glass.

Try renting a 24-70L. You'll find out real quick if it's the lens for you.

canonnoob wrote in post #9679556
you dont shoot sports... shooting sports is all about as fast as you can get, because you need to get the shot. rarely do sport shooters shoot anything but wide open.

Acutually, 90% of what I shoot is indoor sport, look at my Flickr gallery. I still prefer shooting F4=5.5 range so I can get more of the players in the focus plane. All I'm saying is you don't need F2.8 if your shots look better at F4 or greater. If you're shooting individual players versus a pack, or a play of multiple people, then by all means go with faster glass. However, the OP mentioned entertainment events and indoor sports. Shooting bands and the like with the typical drummer on a podium behind the front guys is going to look better with enough DOF to get them all in the focal plane, and that's not 2.8. Shooting a roller derby play involving a Jammer and multiple blockers behind her looks better (and sells better) when the entire pack is in focus to the greatest extent possible. Shooting a guy driving for a layup against a defensive player in the same focal plane.....then I agree with you 100%. Again, my point is don't disregard the affect that the flatter DOF is going to have on your shots at 2.8. Depending on the sport you shoot, that may be a negative factor and a waste of money if your shots look better at F4 or greater.