# 24-70 or 70-200??



## Cmercado (Nov 21, 2012)

I currently have been using the 50mm 1.2 with my MKII for portraits and indoor shoots. However, I would like to expand my lens options and needing a general zoom lens so I have read plenty of lovely reviews about the 24-70 and 70-200. Eventually I would love to have both of these however I can only purchase one of them at this time. Any suggestions on which one I should start with that could give me a good general use until I can also purchase the other? I am torn at this point!


----------



## Menace (Nov 21, 2012)

70-200 2.8 II stays on my camera about 85% of the time - I find is very versatile for portraits and general walk around use.

Have a look at your Exif data to determine whether you mainly shoot at the wide end or the long end - that should help answer your query.

Have fun


----------



## B-Man (Nov 21, 2012)

Either choosing a 24-70 or 70-200 is fine. Both lens are great and you'll not regret the purchase as i did with my 70-200 2.8ii. My main use is candid, portrait and some occasion also use it for street photography. Now waiting for upgrade from Canon aps-c 1000d to FF 6D.


----------



## Rocky (Nov 21, 2012)

Cmercado said:


> I currently have been using the 50mm 1.2 with my MKII for portraits and indoor shoots. However, I would like to expand my lens options and needing a general zoom lens so I have read plenty of lovely reviews about the 24-70 and 70-200. Eventually I would love to have both of these however I can only purchase one of them at this time. Any suggestions on which one I should start with that could give me a good general use until I can also purchase the other? I am torn at this point!


It depends what you call "General Use". If your general use is indoor group shots, cityscape, building, wide scenery etc, get the 24-70. If your general use is candit portrait (people, animal or birds) from distance, get the 70-200.


----------



## BrandonKing96 (Nov 21, 2012)

Depends on what you're using it for. Both are great lenses, but it really depends on what you're using it for. If you want the longer reach go for the 70-200 but if you want a wider lens, then the 24-70. But that's all I can say for now. 
Best of luck


----------



## M.ST (Nov 21, 2012)

The question is, what you are shooting.

If you have a 50 mm lens, then the 16-35 II in combination with the 70-200 2.8 II is a good choice.

If you have only the money for one lens and you don´t need a long focal range get only the 24-70 II.

The best option is to have the 16-35 II , 24-70 II and the 70-200 2.8 II. With this three lenses you can do 90 percent of all jobs.


----------



## picturesbyme (Nov 21, 2012)

depends, but....
..would start with the 70-200.
(not sure which one you are looking at but they are all pretty good, you might also want to look at the newer sigma 2.8 OS)
If you are shooting portraits and you already have a 50, the 24-70 isn't going to be a huge diff. unless those mentioned indoor shots are kinda tight... (I use mine at the 50-70 range a lot). Plus by the time you're ready to get that 24-70 hopefully you'll have a larger selection  and lower price once the waves calm down after the early adapters....


----------



## Julie G. (Nov 21, 2012)

I would go for the 70-200 because I don't like the 24-70 (soft at 2.8!). Just sold mine and bought the 35L, couldn't be happier. 

I have the cheap 70-200 F4 NON IS and I love it, it's great for sports, nature, portraits. I would like the 2.8 IS II, but it's not my first priority (might buy the 135L instead). But it all comes down to what you want to shoot, something wide like landscape and group portraits or something with a bit tighter view to isolate a subject for portraits, sports, nature.


----------



## kirillica (Nov 21, 2012)

these are two totally different lenses. how can you compare them?


----------



## Julie G. (Nov 21, 2012)

You can't compare them and the decision comes down to what that person needs: wide/normal or tele. So it's a personal choice. But I'm guessing he/she want's both, but right now he/she can only buy one of them.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 21, 2012)

M.ST said:


> The best option is to have the 16-35 II , 24-70 II and the 70-200 2.8 II. With this three lenses you can do 90 percent of all jobs.



... and you have to have a lot of jobs to pay for these :->

Btw the "best" is a difficult term, maybe the best 3-lens combination, but certainly not the best size, weight, stealth or open aperture.



Cmercado said:


> Eventually I would love to have both of these however I can only purchase one of them at this time.



You probably realize that "portraits and indoor shoots" don't square, or get the 28-300L. However, your choices of fast standard zooms are much more limited, essentially the Canon 24-70 mk1 & mk2 and the Tamron. So if you find one of these attractive you won't regret it later. For tele or 85mm+ portrait range, there are a lot of other options, Canon or 3rd party, primes or zooms - so it's a more difficult choice, the 70-200 lenses are just one good option among others.


----------



## Jay Khaos (Nov 21, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> M.ST said:
> 
> 
> > The best option is to have the 16-35 II , 24-70 II and the 70-200 2.8 II. With this three lenses you can do 90 percent of all jobs.
> ...



90% of all jobs, theoretically, assuming you are standing in one place in the middle of an event and cant move and want as many photo opportunities as possible...? I'll take the 70-200, but give me a 50 1.2 and canon 14mm instead of the other 2 (slightly cheaper, lighter, faster). That's just me though.. I think you can do 90% of all jobs with just the 50 if you're not lazy though

To Cmercado: I would vote for the 70-200 2.8 IS ii. Assuming everything else is constant, and that you're working to build a range. I think I would personally rather add a faster prime to my 50 1.2 as opposed to replacing with a 24-70 ii. The only reason I'd get the 24-70 ii is if I needed the convenience of going from semi-wide to medium framing fast (for weddings , that might be invaluable, but not for portraiture). The 70-200 is ii is a more valuable investment for portraits and sports, and there are less primes within it's range that could come close to replacing it as there are to replace a 24-70. The downside is that its heavy for some people to carry around for long periods of time...


----------



## Dylan777 (Nov 21, 2012)

With version f2.8 II (IS), you can't go wrong with neither lenses. I own both and they worth every penny. I *WOULD NOT  * trade my 24-70 f2.8 II for 35L + 50L. This lens is SHARP end-to-end at f2.8.

1. If you like candid potrait; 70-200 on FF is your choice, even when you indoor

2. If you like to shoot wider indoor or use as general walk around lens, 24-70 is the choice , day or night. I wouldn't carry 70-200 f2.8 as walk around lens, even with RS-7 strap

It will be a hard decision...but you will not regret with the results from these lenses. AGAIN, get the version II f2.8 (IS)


----------



## Dylan777 (Nov 21, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> M.ST said:
> 
> 
> > The best option is to have the 16-35 II , 24-70 II and the 70-200 2.8 II. With this three lenses you can do 90 percent of all jobs.
> ...



I DON'T do photography for living and I own all 3 lenses. So... what seem to be a problem?

You don't have to buy all 3 lenses at the same time. One by one, the next thing you know your bag is filled with goodies not junk


----------



## mrmarks (Nov 21, 2012)

I guess you're talking about the 24-70F2.8L2 and the 70-200ISF2.8L2. Both are really excellent lenses with full frame and are complementary. Since your 50L1.2 covers the middle of the 24-70 focal range, you should get the 70-200. It is the best compromise. Of course if you have the money, you should get both and still keep the 50L2 for very low light or shallow dof work.


----------



## PavelR (Nov 21, 2012)

mrmarks said:


> I guess you're talking about the 24-70F2.8L2 and the 70-200ISF2.8L2. Both are really excellent lenses with full frame and are complementary. Since your 50L1.2 covers the middle of the 24-70 focal range, you should get the 70-200. It is the best compromise. Of course if you have the money, you should get both and still keep the 50L2 for very low light or shallow dof work.


+1


----------



## symmar22 (Nov 21, 2012)

24-70 + 70-200 is a convenient setting, but is not the only possible one. IMO, you cover more subjects with a 24-70mm (real wide angle to short tele) than with a 70-200 (short tele to long tele). 

You could as well consider other (cheaper) combinations :

- 24-70mm f2.8 (or f4 IS) + 135 f2 (keep your 50mm)

- 24-105mm f4 IS + 200mm f2.8 (keep you 50mm)

- 16-35mm f2.8 (or 17-40mm f4) + your 50mm + 70-200mm f2.8

All these lenses are good, but you must define what focal range will be the most useful for you. If you do not know yet, try by any mean to rent or borrow these lenses or some equivalent ones to make up your mind before you spend $2000+.

Have fun with your new toy(s)


----------



## sgshum (Nov 22, 2012)

symmar22 said:


> 24-70 + 70-200 is a convenient setting, but is not the only possible one. IMO, you cover more subjects with a 24-70mm (real wide angle to short tele) than with a 70-200 (short tele to long tele).
> 
> You could as well consider other (cheaper) combinations :
> 
> ...



+1


----------



## AudioGlenn (Nov 23, 2012)

70-200 since you have a 50 1.2 already


----------

