Gear Talk > Lenses

24-70 or 70-200??

<< < (2/4) > >>

M.ST:
The question is, what you are shooting.

If you have a 50 mm lens, then the 16-35 II in combination with the 70-200 2.8 II is a good choice.

If you have only the money for one lens and you donĀ“t need a long focal range get only the 24-70 II.

The best option is to have the 16-35 II , 24-70 II and the 70-200 2.8 II. With this three lenses you can do 90 percent of all jobs.

picturesbyme:
depends, but....
..would start with the 70-200.
 (not sure which one you are looking at but they are all pretty good, you might also want to look at the newer sigma 2.8 OS)
If you are shooting portraits and you already have a 50, the 24-70 isn't going to be a huge diff. unless those mentioned indoor shots are kinda tight... (I use mine at the 50-70 range a lot). Plus by the time you're ready to get that 24-70 hopefully you'll have a larger selection ;) and lower price once the waves calm down after the early adapters....

Julie G.:
I would go for the 70-200 because I don't like the 24-70 (soft at 2.8!). Just sold mine and bought the 35L, couldn't be happier.

I have the cheap 70-200 F4 NON IS and I love it, it's great for sports, nature, portraits. I would like the 2.8 IS II, but it's not my first priority (might buy the 135L instead). But it all comes down to what you want to shoot, something wide like landscape and group portraits or something with a bit tighter view to isolate a subject for portraits, sports, nature.

kirillica:
these are two totally different lenses. how can you compare them?

Julie G.:
You can't compare them and the decision comes down to what that person needs: wide/normal or tele. So it's a personal choice. But I'm guessing he/she want's both, but right now he/she can only buy one of them.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version