24-70 IS ii v 70-200 IS ii

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have the 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II and I would agree with many others that this is an excellent choice to widen your range of focal lengths. You already have the wide to mild tele range covered with your 24-70, so unless you want to go ultra-wide or super-tele this is a good pairing. I would go with the 24-70 II only if you are finding the mk I inadequate for your purposes, which you didn't mention.

I also had concerns about the weight after reading the reviews. Although I am not particularly big or brawny I haven't found it to be a problem. In large part I think this is down to the bag and strap I use. Based on advice from this forum I got a BlackRapid RS-4 strap, which I love. I also acquired a messenger style bag just big enough for my 5DII, 24-105mm f/4 L and the 70-200 (I think the 24-70 would fit fine in place of the 24-105). Along with a 1.4x III TC for greater reach, and an extension tube for occasional close-ups, this forms my "light" travel kit for trips when I am toting baggage and a computer around as well. The messenger style bag keeps the weight close to your body, reducing back strain, and the bag will also slip over the handle of a standard aircraft roll-aboard case for easy carrying in transit.

Once I am at my destination, I put the bag over one shoulder and the camera over the other. The BR strap allows the camera to hang upside-down at the waist, and the weight is balanced by the lens and accessories in the bag. I find I can walk or hike for quite some time without tiring or experiencing muscle strain, as I used to before I got this bag and strap setup.

As someone mentioned, the 70-200 f/4 L IS is also an excellent lens with significantly less weight and cost than the f/2.8 version. It is comparable in sharpness, has a slightly lower minimum focus distance, and is fine as long as you don't need the extra stop or narrower depth of field. For greater reach, there is also the 70-300 L to consider.
 
Upvote 0
Rienzphotoz said:
brad-man said:
You might also consider a Tamron SP24-70 f/2.8 VC. It's sharper than the Canon mk l
I have the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC and I agree that it is a good choice but it is definitely not sharper than the 24-70 f/2.8 MK I ... if VC/IS is not important to you, it is better to get the 24-70 f/2.8 MK I (if you can find one).

I also have the Tamron and love it. Though I have no personal experience with the original 24-70L, virtually every review I have read (including Roger @ LR and our favorite-DxOmark) says that not only is it sharper than ver 1, it is a close second to version 2. The price and VC are just gravey...
 
Upvote 0
Rienzphotoz said:
Andy_Hodapp said:
If your on a budget, you might want to go for the 200mm F/2.8 L. It is light and autofocuses very quickly, I just got mine yesterday and already have fallen in love with it. It is light weight so good for traveling and very very sharp.
Here are some shots I got with mine, they are cropped in slightly and some of them were shot through window glass so it is very impressive how sharp they are.
8575530253_c50af1bdd8_o.jpg
Like this second image ... very nice, beautiful colors. That looks like one tack sharp lens Congratulations on your purchase ... since 2009 I've considered getting the 200 f/2.8 L on several occasions but somehow never made up my mind and for better or worse I finally ended up buying the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II in 2010, but I still look at the 200 L prime with envy.

Thank you very much. I tried to match the colors as much as possible as they were in real life because I was shooting through a tinted glass window that really skewed the colors. I'm a little envious towards your 70-200, I've tried the 70-200 and the only thing it seems to be worse at is distortion and vignetting.
 
Upvote 0
brad-man said:
Rienzphotoz said:
brad-man said:
You might also consider a Tamron SP24-70 f/2.8 VC. It's sharper than the Canon mk l
I have the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC and I agree that it is a good choice but it is definitely not sharper than the 24-70 f/2.8 MK I ... if VC/IS is not important to you, it is better to get the 24-70 f/2.8 MK I (if you can find one).
our favorite-DxOmark
Ha ha ha ... don't drag me there ;D ;D ;D
brad-man said:
Roger @ LR and our favorite-DxOmark says that not only is it sharper than ver 1, it is a close second to version 2. The price and VC are just gravey...
I'm no expert like Roger of LR or DxO but in my very limited experience I found the sharpness of EF 24-70 L & 24-70 VC to be in distinguishable ... but when it comes to the sharpness of EF 24-70 L II the Tamron is no match ... I had the 24-70 L II, unfortunately it was stolen ... bcoz I could not pay another $2200, so I went with the 24-70 VC plus I got it for over $250 less than the regular US price ... its a brilliant lens and worth the money but if I could, I would still go with the 24-70 L II.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.