I recently bought a Canon 5D Mark I and I'm not sure which lens to buy. They are both about the same price but have completely different focal lengths. I've read reviews on both and they seem to be Canon's top lenses. If any of you who have either of these lens could you please give me some pros and cons and what kind of photography matches the lens. Thanks in advance.
Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 II vs Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 II
- Thread starter TeckKing
- Start date
I guess it depends on whether you want a superb wrench or a superb hammer; The 70-200 has length for sports, and the 24-70 is wide enough for a lot of things. Assuming you mean the 70-200 IS II, the IS is the biggest difference. There should be threads for both showing what others have used them for, I personally would have bought the 70-200 first because I (personally) find the length more useful particularly outdoors.
Jim
Jim
Upvote
0
TeckKing said:
In that case a 17-40 and an original 24-70 might be worth a look over the 24-70 II. The extra width will be handy for landscapes, and you should find a comfortable length in there somewhere for portraits. The other thing is that all three at 77mm filter thread.
Jim
Upvote
0
Both are awesome lenses, and I have both. The 70-200 is big and heavy to take along for trips, but this is not a concern ( I know, not compared to the big boy teles, but just saying). The IS may or may not be an issue if you are shooting on a tripod. Perhaps it is my copy, but the 24-70 is sharper, but then, this is not a friend to mature women in portraits.
Tough choice, as they are both so good. How big is your studio?
sek
Tough choice, as they are both so good. How big is your studio?
sek
Upvote
0
TeckKing said:
Ignore the 17-40 and the 24-70 original advice, unless you are looking to save money. The 24-70mm f/2.8 II is far superior to those two lenses.
Landscapes, portraits, pictures of the family in the house, family events, going to a museum, general photography go with the 24-70mm f/2.8L II.
Wildlife photos, portraits, outdoor and indoor sports, kids soccer game, events where you can not get close.
If you can only have one lens IMO you would have the 24-70mm first.
Upvote
0
TeckKing said:
It would, for instance inside you might be to close to capture a group if you were inside a room or building. You wouldn't be able to capture the essence of event inside if you could only capture a small slice of the scene.
If you were wanting to shoot the Grand Tetons you would get a much narrower slice of the overall scene.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
TeckKing said:
Having 70mm as the widest focal length could be very limiting. In general, I'd agree with the recommendations to get the 24-70 II first. However, you listed outdoor portraits as your main use, and landscapes second - I think the 70-200 II is a better lens for outdoor portraits.
A suggestion, since you say you'll be getting both eventually: consider getting the 70-200 II and the 40mm f/2.8 pancake now. The latter delivers surprisingly good IQ, is f/2.8, and is relatively cheap. When shooting events, I often use the 70-200 II hanging from a Blackrapid strap attached to the lens collar. I keep the 40/2.8 in a pocket, and if I need wider than 70mm I swap lenses, leaving the 70-200 hanging from the strap and handholding the body with the pancake lens.
Upvote
0
But on the other hand the 70-200 is a very handy urban landscape tool, to pick up detail, to jump over "obstacles" (roads, posts) and to use the tele compression to augment the feelings of the city as a huge ensemble.
Just saying, landscape can be done in all focals, not only UWA.
Just saying, landscape can be done in all focals, not only UWA.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
+1 I love my 70-200mm f/2.8mm IS II for outdoor portraits! It opens up lots of possibilities! Even Scott Kelby, shooting on the dark side loves and recommends 70-200mm f/2.8 for portraiture, inside and outside! I like it outside the best however. Indoor portraits can be limiting depending on the venue... I'd grab that one if you'll be doing that much more outside portraiture...
The 40mm pancake is a great option as well...
Upvote
0
TeckKing said:
I have both and use the 24-70mm focal range much more often than the 70-200mm range. I'd suggest to start with the 24-70mm and get later the 70-200mm. In the mean time you can crop the images if you need for close up, since the sharpness of the 24-70mm is superb.
Upvote
0
17-40 + 70-200 make a great travel/2-lens/2-camera solution, giving you a ton of versatility. And as also mentioned above, a 40mm pancake provides a compact complement to the 70-200 when you need wide-ish angle with limited space. Also the 2.8 is a versatile lens, being able to work pretty well with teleconverters for expanded zoom range.
A 24-70 makes a great 1 lens solution and is a great "do pretty much everything" workhorse, especially for event and wedding photographers. The mkII version of both lenses are reputed to be two of the sharpest zooms ever created.
Other cheaper alternatives to the 24-70 exist (all of lesser but decent quality): the 24-70 mki, the 28-70 predecessor, the Tamron 24-70 with stabilization, the Canon 24-105 f/4 IS, the Tamron 28-75.
Other cheaper alternatives to the 70-200 are the mkI IS, the non-IS, the two Canon f/4 70-200s (more compact/lighter), the Sigma 2.8 OS (non-macro), the Canon 135mm f/2 (which works with the teleconverters), and the 200mm 2.8 (ibid).
The 2.8 mkII is a big, white, heavy, expensive lens that attracts a lot of attention, and that may factor into your purchase (for better or worse).
They are both excellent optics that have been recently updated and are recognized as true performers. If you are thinking of taking the plunge for such pro-quality glass, i'd recommend you utilize your money to cover your focal lengths with decent lenses first.
A 24-70 makes a great 1 lens solution and is a great "do pretty much everything" workhorse, especially for event and wedding photographers. The mkII version of both lenses are reputed to be two of the sharpest zooms ever created.
Other cheaper alternatives to the 24-70 exist (all of lesser but decent quality): the 24-70 mki, the 28-70 predecessor, the Tamron 24-70 with stabilization, the Canon 24-105 f/4 IS, the Tamron 28-75.
Other cheaper alternatives to the 70-200 are the mkI IS, the non-IS, the two Canon f/4 70-200s (more compact/lighter), the Sigma 2.8 OS (non-macro), the Canon 135mm f/2 (which works with the teleconverters), and the 200mm 2.8 (ibid).
The 2.8 mkII is a big, white, heavy, expensive lens that attracts a lot of attention, and that may factor into your purchase (for better or worse).
They are both excellent optics that have been recently updated and are recognized as true performers. If you are thinking of taking the plunge for such pro-quality glass, i'd recommend you utilize your money to cover your focal lengths with decent lenses first.
Upvote
0
Since you listed portraiture first, I agree with those recommending the 70-200 2.8 II and a 40 pancake. I own both of the options you listed, and they are fantastic! But, my preference for portraits is definitely the 70-200. The 40 will do a nice job with group shots and wider landscapes. You can always create multi shot panoramas if you need something wider.
Upvote
0
As the others have pointed out, it's not really a one vs. the other, it's a question of which one first. If portraits are your priority and by that, you will mostly shoot a single person, the 70-200 is the way to go. If you're mostly shooting couples and groups, the 24-70 is probably better as you can get away with headshots at 70mm, but it's hard to shoot more than two people at 70mm unless you stand way back. Even full body shots can be limiting at 70mm unless you have the room to back up.
Upvote
0
I would echo the suggestion of the 70-200 f2.8L Mark II and the 40 f2.8. I don't have the 24-70, instead, I have the 24-105 f4. The 24-105 offers greater range, but I still prefer the 70-200 most of the time.
This all depends upon what you shoot. For me, it's most often sports (mostly indoor) and events (people candids) with some portrait stuff. The 70-200 on a FF body is a great range to isolate you subject. Note that at events, I also like to stay in the background and out of the way. It's only for those "establishing" shots and group photos that I go to the shorter zoom or a shorter prime.
For me, the jump from 40mm to 70mm isn't a big deal. If the 40 is a little too wide I can either move closer or crop. Granted, it is nice to have all focal lengths covered between 24 and 200, but I don't get too hung up on not having the full range between 40 and 70.
Just last night I shot grade school musical (basically choirs and school bands) with the 70-200. I used a 35 2.0 for some establishing shots of the venue and crowd, but everything else was with the 70-200. I have no problem getting a group of kids in the shot or zeroing in on one or two. I had my 24-105 with me, but didn't use it because I didn't need anything wider than the 35.
I also find that the 70-200 is great for portraits -- up to 2 in an average living, or larger groups outside. If individuals are the subject matter, I try to avoid the wider focal lengths which can be less than flattering.
This all depends upon what you shoot. For me, it's most often sports (mostly indoor) and events (people candids) with some portrait stuff. The 70-200 on a FF body is a great range to isolate you subject. Note that at events, I also like to stay in the background and out of the way. It's only for those "establishing" shots and group photos that I go to the shorter zoom or a shorter prime.
For me, the jump from 40mm to 70mm isn't a big deal. If the 40 is a little too wide I can either move closer or crop. Granted, it is nice to have all focal lengths covered between 24 and 200, but I don't get too hung up on not having the full range between 40 and 70.
Just last night I shot grade school musical (basically choirs and school bands) with the 70-200. I used a 35 2.0 for some establishing shots of the venue and crowd, but everything else was with the 70-200. I have no problem getting a group of kids in the shot or zeroing in on one or two. I had my 24-105 with me, but didn't use it because I didn't need anything wider than the 35.
I also find that the 70-200 is great for portraits -- up to 2 in an average living, or larger groups outside. If individuals are the subject matter, I try to avoid the wider focal lengths which can be less than flattering.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
