24-70 or 70-200

[Dirt_Bike_Ryda]

im having a hard time working out which one of these lens i should buy first...

i want to end up with both of them. but as we all know "as much as we earn, it never seems enough"

the ** 24-70 f/2.8L USM ** is ~$1800

the ** 70-200 f/2.8L II IS USM ** is ~$3200

i want both of then. i have never used the 24-70, how-ever i have used the 70-200 a few times, and i LOVE it (although i have only ever seen the end result through the back of a camera, i was helping another photographer who has alot of lens...) i love that you can get a nice shallow DoF and it has a nice perspective. how-ever i also want a f/2.8 wide angle. i have 3 wedding on the cards, and a year 12 formal with-in the next 3 month. i half think that a wide angle f2.8 would be good for that... but. i don't have anything past 105mm so i can't get any shot with-out being sorta *in ya face*

i was more-or-less wondering if anyone has both of these lens, and wondering which you bought first and why, and any other thoughts would be nice. such as reasons why i should buy one not the other. mainly because i'm sure im missing things and that.

[gturner]

on the 5D I would get the 70-200. You already have the 24-105.

No brainer.

2.8, IS, full frame camera. You will hardly every take it off

[rharrison]

I wouldn't rule out getting the Mark one of the 70-200 IS. Its still an outstanding lens but can be found for much cheaper now that the mark II is out.

I've got both the 24-70 f2.8L and a 70-200 f2.8L IS (mark I) and I love them both for very different reasons. The 24-70 is an outstanding walk around lens with a great focal range for when you don't know how far you'll be able to get from your subject. For getting a nice soft background with a short DOF the 70-200 is where its at.

Another option you might consider is getting the 70-200 and a 50mm f1.4 (only $350) for some shallow DOF during the reception. You'll be surprised how much you end up shooting with the fast prime its an excellent investment for the money.

Hmmm...instead of deciding between the two, I'd recommend getting the Sigma set...the Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 and the Sigma 70-200 f2.8.

I've had both for quite some time, and the answer to your question is that you really need both. For weddings, you need the 24-70 for portraits, dances, and general use in tight places. The 70-200 is needed for the ceremony, and candids during the reception. IS is nice, but with the 5DMarkII, you should be able to hand-hold that with higher ISO, or put it on a tripod during the ceremony.

That being said, now that I have enough money I am upgrading to those lenses soon (the Canon 24-70mm is being delivered on Tues). Optically, the Canon 24-70 is slightly better, (not a big deal) and it has USM (which is nice). The Canon 70-200 is quite a bit sharper than the Sigma (but the sigma is no slouch either), and you gain IS, which will give you 3 stops of light (which is nice for weddings, useless for sports). But the kicker is, I can sell both of my Sigma lenses for about 90% of what I paid for them 18 months ago. So if you're short on money and can't get both, I'd get the Sigmas now and upgrade to the Canons later.

[jdepould]

Based on what you have, I'd say get the 70-200 first. Also, try renting before you buy.

[sk66]

I'd say the 70-200 as well....but it's a large/heavy beast.

[jdepould]

Originally Posted by sk66

I'd say the 70-200 as well....but it's a large/heavy beast.

Eh, that's all a matter of perspective. I've come to think of the 70-200 as small.

[Dirt_Bike_Ryda]

I'm going to stick with Canon *L* series lens, so i'm not going to bother with the sigma, as good as they probably are.

Yeah. i think your right. The 70-200 is probably my best bet for now... as expensive as the darn thing is.

And yes. the 70-200 is small. compared to at least the 100-400. i dislike that lens...

[sk66]

Originally Posted by jdepould

Eh, that's all a matter of perspective. I've come to think of the 70-200 as small.

That is true...I often carry the Sigma 300-800mm f/5.6 and with the D3/monopod that's over 15# with my tripod/gimbal it's over 25#.

Still, I would not consider a 70-200 f/2.8 a "lightweigt walkaround" lens for most.

[jdepould]

Originally Posted by sk66

That is true...I often carry the Sigma 300-800mm f/5.6 and with the D3/monopod that's over 15# with my tripod/gimbal it's over 25#.

Still, I would not consider a 70-200 f/2.8 a "lightweigt walkaround" lens for most.

I've gotten used to running with long 2.8 primes on a gripped D700 (slightly larger + heavier than D3), so even the new, larger 70-200s seem like just another lens.

Now, I did shoot a 500/4 last year, that seemed big, even to me.