24-70 2.8f II or 70-200 2.8f II

[jaydafly12]

First timer on the Forum looking to get some opinions on these two lenses

Ok so i'm planning on getting the 5d mark III here pretty soon and I wanted to get some opinions on what lens I should get with it first, the 24-70 2.8f II or the 70-200 2.8f II? I plan on having both of them at some point in time but for now I just want one or the other.

p.s. Some of my main subject matter is going to be events i.e. weddings, birthday parties and an occasional sporting event.

 

[charlesa]

That's a tough one, but would take the 24-70 first.

 

[Loswr]

Really, you need both. But a general purpose zoom is called that for a reason. If your only lens is a 70-200, you'll miss a lot of shots because you just can't back up far enough.

For weddings, a telezoom is almost always needed during the ceremony. For sporting events, the 70-200 would be better.

Honestly, if you can't get both very soon, you need a stopgap. Get the 24-70 II and a longer prime, or the 70-200 II and a shorter prime. For example, the 40/2.8 and the 70-200/2.8 II is a combo that I often use for events. The 40/2.8 goes in my pocket, the 70-200 on a blackrapid strap or spider holster, and when swapping on the pancake, I leave the 70-200 connected to the strap/belt.

 

[RLPhoto]

That's a tough one. Personally I'd get a 5D3 Kit so you have a 24-105L + 70-200LII. Eventually when the time comes, sell the 24-105L and buy the 24-70LII.

 

[Random Orbits]

That's a tough one. Personally I'd get a 5D3 Kit so you have a 24-105L + 70-200LII. Eventually when the time comes, sell the 24-105L and buy the 24-70LII.

+1.

 

[AudioGlenn]

I vote for the 70-200 2.8 IS II and a 40mm pancake!

 

[Harry Muff]

Not to be an arsehole, but it really depends on whether you want to take pictures of things close by or far away.


Only you can decide this one. They're both top class lenses.

 

[distant.star]

Not to be an arsehole, but it really depends on whether you want to take pictures of things close by or far away.

Only you can decide this one. They're both top class lenses.

That's about how I see it. You don't really want opinions on lenses, you want opinions of focal lengths.

Given the venues you list, you'll be the star of the show at birthday parties with the 24-70. Everywhere else you'll be limited and doing a lot of cropping. With the 70-200, you'll get great shots at weddings, sporting events, etc., but at birthday parties you'll have lots of pictures of people's noses.

If you can swing it, the advice on going with the kit 24-105 and the 70-200 is sound to me. Otherwise, I agree with the 70-200 and the 40mm as a stand-in until you have a 24-70. The 40mm is a superb lens, and you'll always find uses for it -- could be the best $150 you ever spent on photo equipment.

 

[J.R.]

That's a tough one. Personally I'd get a 5D3 Kit so you have a 24-105L + 70-200LII. Eventually when the time comes, sell the 24-105L and buy the 24-70LII.

+1 ... good, practical advice, unless you can get both together at the outset.

 

[jaydafly12]

Really, you need both. But a general purpose zoom is called that for a reason. If your only lens is a 70-200, you'll miss a lot of shots because you just can't back up far enough.

For weddings, a telezoom is almost always needed during the ceremony. For sporting events, the 70-200 would be better.

Honestly, if you can't get both very soon, you need a stopgap. Get the 24-70 II and a longer prime, or the 70-200 II and a shorter prime. For example, the 40/2.8 and the 70-200/2.8 II is a combo that I often use for events. The 40/2.8 goes in my pocket, the 70-200 on a blackrapid strap or spider holster, and when swapping on the pancake, I leave the 70-200 connected to the strap/belt.

I like your suggestion. Didn't really think about having one or the other with a prime. Now the question with having one or the other with a prime is whats the perfect prime to complement either one. I think the 70-200 with a 40 would be nice but then how would you get those wide shots when needed?

 

[jaydafly12]

That's a tough one. Personally I'd get a 5D3 Kit so you have a 24-105L + 70-200LII. Eventually when the time comes, sell the 24-105L and buy the 24-70LII.

I thought about that too but was turned off by not having the 2.8f option.

 

[J.R.]

That's a tough one. Personally I'd get a 5D3 Kit so you have a 24-105L + 70-200LII. Eventually when the time comes, sell the 24-105L and buy the 24-70LII.

I thought about that too but was turned off by not having the 2.8f option.

Seeing that you do birthday parties and weddings primarily, do you really need f/2.8 all the time? Why not get the kit lens, 70-200 II AND a fast prime?

 

[Loswr]

I like your suggestion. Didn't really think about having one or the other with a prime. Now the question with having one or the other with a prime is whats the perfect prime to complement either one. I think the 70-200 with a 40 would be nice but then how would you get those wide shots when needed?

That goes both ways. However, the 24-70 II and the 70-200 II are approximately the same price. A tele prime in the 135-200mm range is several hundred dollars. If you get the 200/2.8, you'll likely not use it after getting the 70-200 II. A 40/2.8 is $150, and given it's conveniently small size, it's useful even after having the 24-70 II.

As for wide shots, someone here (apologies for forgetting who) has pointed out that the 40/2.8 has an exit pupil that's basically at the body, so doing a quick handheld pano shot and stitching the resuting images together is quite easy with that lens, when 40mm isn't wide enough.

 

[jaydafly12]

That's a tough one. Personally I'd get a 5D3 Kit so you have a 24-105L + 70-200LII. Eventually when the time comes, sell the 24-105L and buy the 24-70LII.

I thought about that too but was turned off by not having the 2.8f option.

Seeing that you do birthday parties and weddings primarily, do you really need f/2.8 all the time? Why not get the kit lens, 70-200 II AND a fast prime?

true but its always good to have that 2.8f option right?

and yes those 3 wouldn't be a bad option actually....maybe 70-200 + 40 2.8 and the kit lens.

Thanks now I have some ideas of what I can put together.

 

[Hardwire]

I like your suggestion. Didn't really think about having one or the other with a prime. Now the question with having one or the other with a prime is whats the perfect prime to complement either one. I think the 70-200 with a 40 would be nice but then how would you get those wide shots when needed?

That goes both ways. However, the 24-70 II and the 70-200 II are approximately the same price. A tele prime in the 135-200mm range is several hundred dollars. If you get the 200/2.8, you'll likely not use it after getting the 70-200 II. A 40/2.8 is $150, and given it's conveniently small size, it's useful even after having the 24-70 II.

As for wide shots, someone here (apologies for forgetting who) has pointed out that the 40/2.8 has an exit pupil that's basically at the body, so doing a quick handheld pano shot and stitching the resuting images together is quite easy with that lens, when 40mm isn't wide enough.

To further agree with this, when my kit was stolen and I had to replace quickly I picked up a 5d3, a 70-200 2.8 I (not the 2 for cost saving) 24-70 2.8 II and a 50 1.4 (tho a 1.8 would also work). I find that while the 24-70 is an awesome lens, I still swap out to the 50 a fair amount....so the concept of a 700-200 + a 40 2.8 is not a bad starting place.

If I am honest, if I thought it would be some time before I could get the second of the two main bits of glass I would still consider the 23-105 4 + 70-200 2.8 with a 50 1.4/8 for very low light...but remember the 5d is a fighter in low light so do not be too afraid of F4 as a get-you-by-lens. In fact I know of a well respected wedding photog who only shoots jpg on a 5d2 with the 24-105 4 and gets some great wedding coverage.

Good kit helps, good skills are better.

 

[vmk]

That's a tough one. Personally I'd get a 5D3 Kit so you have a 24-105L + 70-200LII. Eventually when the time comes, sell the 24-105L and buy the 24-70LII.

+1, Eventually I ended up doing this...

 

[gferdinandsen]

Personally I find myself using my 24-70 mk2 almost 80% of my shots, but it has a lot todo with what you are shooting.

 

[RLPhoto]

That's a tough one. Personally I'd get a 5D3 Kit so you have a 24-105L + 70-200LII. Eventually when the time comes, sell the 24-105L and buy the 24-70LII.

I thought about that too but was turned off by not having the 2.8f option.

Seeing that you do birthday parties and weddings primarily, do you really need f/2.8 all the time? Why not get the kit lens, 70-200 II AND a fast prime?

true but its always good to have that 2.8f option right?

and yes those 3 wouldn't be a bad option actually....maybe 70-200 + 40 2.8 and the kit lens.

Thanks now I have some ideas of what I can put together.

F/2.8 and F/4 on FF will both give nice soft background's at full zoom. When you get to the really, really low light, I found even f/2.8 isn't fast enough and that's why I still keep my primes.

The 24-105L is a great lens for flash Btw, I always use mine @ 5.6 or smaller.

 

[Dylan777]

As an owner of both lenses, 24-70 seems to be a better choice for general shooting. 70-200 might not be wide enough indoor. I would go 24-70 first then add 135L for longer end if budget allows. I tried this lens and I like what I see. It's smaller, lighter, and 1stop faster than 70-200. Sharpness is amazing.

 

[K-amps]

I like your suggestion. Didn't really think about having one or the other with a prime. Now the question with having one or the other with a prime is whats the perfect prime to complement either one. I think the 70-200 with a 40 would be nice but then how would you get those wide shots when needed?

That goes both ways. However, the 24-70 II and the 70-200 II are approximately the same price. A tele prime in the 135-200mm range is several hundred dollars. If you get the 200/2.8, you'll likely not use it after getting the 70-200 II. A 40/2.8 is $150, and given it's conveniently small size, it's useful even after having the 24-70 II.

As for wide shots, someone here (apologies for forgetting who) has pointed out that the 40/2.8 has an exit pupil that's basically at the body, so doing a quick handheld pano shot and stitching the resuting images together is quite easy with that lens, when 40mm isn't wide enough.

This option is novel and just on that basis alone, I would do it .

The 24-105 is an ok lens and if i am making money off weddings, I'd get a Loan and invest in the 24-70ii.