24-70mm f/2.8 or 70-200mm f/2.8 IS or Non-IS?

[ChrisAdval]

For me... which would be best...? As most of the regular posters what I'm trying to achieve in my career as a photographer which would be the best choice right now to invest into?

70-200mm L f/2.8 IS II USM $2,069.00
or
70-200mm L f/2.8 non-IS II USM $1,226.00 (I don't think I would mind using a non-IS)
or
24-70mm L f/2.8 USM $1,249.00

Note, my current situation with a studio space in my home I may have some problems using a crop-sensor with a 70-200mm as my current 50mm EF 1.8 lens gives not much space when its field of view changes to about 70mm, if I get the 70-200mm the field of view would be from about 100-250mm or so... so I will have a extremely difficult time using the 70-200mm on my crop sensor in my current studio space... But it would be perfect for outdoor portraits/environmental outdoor portraits. So... yea, tough choice!

As for the 24-70mm it would change into about 50-90mm field of view which I think I could deal with in my studio space right now.

I expect to own one of the above lenses for at least 5-10 years, so I'm prepared to make the jump to one of them this year.

[RichardTaylor]

I would go for the IS lens as an insurance for possible future shooting needs.

You will probably need both a 24-70 and a 70-200 down the track, and a second body.

Re focal lengths - your existing 18-135 should give you an idea if a 24-70 would work in your studio space.

(1) What do you need, not want, now?
(2) Have you checked with an accountant, for example, re purchases for a business?

[DelCan]

I have both lens and I use the 24-70mm the most. It's more universal. But I love my 70-200mm!

[ChrisAdval]

Originally Posted by RichardTaylor

(1) What do you need, not want, now?
(2) Have you checked with an accountant, for example, re purchases for a business?

I'm not familiar with the term "re purchases", do you mean resale?

What I need is sharper images, I want to focus more outside of the studio work, either a super wide angle would be fantastic for environmental portraits outdoors or/and indoors, but one that would last me at least 5, to maybe 10 years, so high image quality and durability. I use the 18-135 for widest focal length but the sharpness and aperture isn't meeting my needs. I need a fixed aperture lens at least with a f/2.8 to f/1.2 for low light shooting outdoors. So I came up with 3 options of the above I thought would be best that could work in many different applications of photography.

So in brief I need a all around lens with a fixed aperture of f/2.8 or lower, wide angle (lower the better, low as 16mm would be nice using a crop sensor it would be about 30mm field of view) . I looked into other lenses but can't find it lower than f/4 zoom lenses and costing about the same as the above lenses I've mentioned.

[gturner]

I would go 24-70... even on the crop.

I think you are going to wet your pants when you see the difference is colour and sharpness.

I would then look at version 1 of the 70-200 2.8 IS, it is still an awesome porduct and you will save a heap off the new price of a version II.

[zona5101]

First off I'd say, you have selected 3 excellent lenses - you wouldn't go wrong with any of them.
Based on my perceived "most bang for your buck" I would be leaning towards the 24-70. It will give you the fast, sharp, wide lens you need indoors. Outdoors at 70, it will give you a nice portrait length, have fairly shallow depth of field at 2.8 and a decent amount of compression.

[RichardTaylor]

+1 on the 24-70.

-------------------------------------

I mean in reference to.

Specifically - Do you buy the equipment or does your business buy the equipment. Tax implications, depreciation, leasing etc.

I am not in business however my son and his wife own and run three chiropractic clinics.

[mbrobich]

Usually equipment purchases have to be written off in a 3 year timeframe(in a business scenerio). So if you can lease(for 3 years) your equipment, may be an easier way to purchase them and acquire them for $10 after the lease is done. In that case you would be better to spring for the IS version. I am assuming the IS version is Image Stabilisation ?

[ChrisAdval]

so 24-70 it is! Thanks for the recommendations!

[Tzetsin]

Have you looked into the 85 1.2 for portraiture? Its my understanding that this lens is very high on the list of good portrait lenses. I've got the lens and I can attest to its amazingness. I dont do portrait work very often, but this lens kicks serious as... butt. Its not cheap though, but no more so than the zooms you've mentioned.