# 24-70 II or 70-200 II



## Kliphten (Oct 5, 2012)

First thing to know is that I plan on getting both but don't have the money to purchase both at the same time. Probably get them a few months apart from each other. Second, most of my shooting will be of my kids/family and will consist of indoor and outdoor shots equally.

So which one to get first? I'd really like to hear from those who take photos of their kids and what they have found to be more versatile/useful.

I like the idea of the 70-200 for those times where I can't be very close to the kids (where the 24-70 would be great) but it's also a huge lens and I'd prefer not to be lugging it around all the time. That's where the 24-70 sounds more appealing. 24-70 is a great lens but I don't know if it will be as versatile in situations with the kids.

Thanks for your guys' input!


----------



## Studio1930 (Oct 5, 2012)

What body you putting this on? If it is FF then the 70-200 is my choice due to the compression (I love compression). If it is going on a crop body then you won't like the 70-200 indoors.


----------



## Kliphten (Oct 5, 2012)

Yeah, sorry, forgot to mention. These lenses will be going on a 5D Mark III body.


----------



## TriGGy (Oct 5, 2012)

I have the same "problem" like the OP. What other lenses do you have?

16-35 II, 24-70 II, and the 70-200 II will cover most of people's needs. But dang, money don't grow on trees.


----------



## rpt (Oct 5, 2012)

Indoors on 5D3? In my head 24-70 wins hands down unless you live in a palace with 100 ft long rooms


----------



## Kliphten (Oct 5, 2012)

rpt said:


> Indoors on 5D3? In my head 24-70 wins hands down unless you live in a palace with 100 ft long rooms



Which happens to be what I live in  Haha

Well, I do plan on having both eventually and it would be used 1/2 indoor, 1/2 outdoor.


----------



## AudioGlenn (Oct 5, 2012)

sounds like a pretty easy decision as the 24-70 II isn't readily available just yet. (maybe in some places). The 70-200 2.8 II has got a great rebate on it right now and the price has settled. You'll be paying a premium to get the 24-70 right away since it was just introduced. Besides, you're on a 5D mkIII so the 70mm focal length on a 70-200 would still prove to be useful.


----------



## Menace (Oct 5, 2012)

What a nice problem to have 

Get the 24-70 II (provided its available where you are) as you don't fancy the heavier 70-200 II right now. It will be superb in doors.

As for my self, 70-200 II stays on my 5d III almost all the time when I'm chasing my kids around 

You can't go wrong with either lens - have fun.


----------



## candyman (Oct 5, 2012)

Hello Kliphten,

I had a similar question. Read some of replies here:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=9847.0


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 5, 2012)

AudioGlenn said:


> sounds like a pretty easy decision as the 24-70 II isn't readily available just yet. (maybe in some places). The 70-200 2.8 II has got a great rebate on it right now and the price has settled.



Imho the 24-70ii is a good investment, too, since the price is likely to stay this high for some time.



Kliphten said:


> I like the idea of the 70-200 for those times where I can't be very close to the kids (where the 24-70 would be great) but it's also a huge lens and I'd prefer not to be lugging it around all the time. That's where the 24-70 sounds more appealing. 24-70 is a great lens but I don't know if it will be as versatile in situations with the kids.



The weight of the 70-200ii is indeed rather brutal as it creates a lot of torque on the wrist, and as an internal zoom it is large to store in the bag. And remember you can crop from a sharp 70mm shot (how much resolution do you need - is it for screen viewing only?), but you cannot zoom out if your kids run towards you with a tele zoom - so the standard zoom should be more versatile.

Imho get the 24-70 now, esp. for indoor shots, and decide later on how often you'll need the 70-200 and if it isn't smarter to get the 70-300L for outdoor shots instead (physically shorter, more zoom range + cheaper) or if you really need a constant f2.8 with today's 5d2/3 iso capability. Imho the 70-200/2.8 is complete overkill for amateur fun shots. You can still get a fast prime lens for portraits that beats the 70-200 later on.


----------



## candyman (Oct 5, 2012)

Unfortunately the 24-70II is still not available in the Netherlands. And.....the indicated prices 2 weeks ago was 2259 euro. Now several shops list the 24-70II for 2579 euro !!!!


The 70-200 II is listed for around 2179 euro. 400 euro difference. I guess better to wait for a good price of the 24-70II


----------



## Random Orbits (Oct 5, 2012)

70-200 first, especially if it's your first lens this in focal length range. Most people already have a midrange zoom/prime, so the 24-70 is more often a smaller upgrade than the 70-200 is. The 70-200 is great when kids are running outside and for sports (i.e. soccer), when the kids get older. If you don't have one already, use a strap (i.e. BlackRapid)/harness system, which makes it much more comfortable to lug around.

The 24-70 looks to be an excellent lens but f/2.8 is sometimes not fast enough for indoor ambient photography, where faster primes are more useful. Plus, you'd be paying an early-adoption premium for getting the 24-70 II now.


----------



## robbymack (Oct 5, 2012)

You can rent both and see what floats your boat. I rented the 24-70ii this past weekend and while it is super sharp and has nice bokeh I don't think it's twice the lens that the first version of that lens is, nor is it likely twice the lens the new tamron 24-70 is (that one has the added bonus of vc). You have a 5diii so you could get away with some of the excellent, lighter, and cheaper f4 zooms by just cranking the iso. In fact the 25-105 probably covers all of your needs and you wont be caught with the wrong FL. I'd rent a couple of options before you decide to part with $2500 or so.


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 5, 2012)

I have both: 24-70 II & 70-200 f2.8 IS II ;D

If you like the candid protrait photo and your house has decent size, 70-200 seems to be a good choice here.

I personally like 24-70 more when I'm indoor, my house is 2200 sq-ft. I now shoot raw, I can always crop in if I need to. 

The only time I pull out the 70-200 when we out door, kids running around the front yard.

Bottom line is, this is a must have combo for Canon shooters


----------



## jasonFTW (Oct 5, 2012)

I've got the same body lens combo and same situation with the kids indoors and out. I really think the 70-200 will excel outdoors especially with the FF true focal lengths as opposed to a crop. While the 24-70 will be perfect for indoors, I would first spring for the 70-200 (outdoors) and perhaps pick up the new shorty forty for indoors. The $200 price tag won't break the bank and would be a great' temporary' lens while you build the fund for the 24-70.

While I do love the 24-70 indoors, I keep the 40mm pancake on for the most part just for the reduced weight and ease of grabbing snapshots of the fam.


----------



## SteveCSmith (Oct 5, 2012)

jasonFTW said:


> I've got the same body lens combo and same situation with the kids indoors and out. I really think the 70-200 will excel outdoors especially with the FF true focal lengths as opposed to a crop. While the 24-70 will be perfect for indoors, I would first spring for the 70-200 (outdoors) and perhaps pick up the new shorty forty for indoors. The $200 price tag won't break the bank and would be a great' temporary' lens while you build the fund for the 24-70.
> 
> While I do love the 24-70 indoors, I keep the 40mm pancake on for the most part just for the reduced weight and ease of grabbing snapshots of the fam.



Good advice! Don't know how old the OP's kids are, but getting candid shots of my 3 and 5 year olds requires some reach so they don't know you are there. The 40 (or maybe even a cheap 50) would take care of the portraits and tighter quarters for a while.


----------



## Kliphten (Oct 5, 2012)

Thanks for all the great input! I'm not sure if it has helped or made my decision harder, though 

I think I'm going to go with the 70-200 first and then probably pick up the 24-70 when it is more readily available.


----------



## drjlo (Oct 5, 2012)

jasonFTW said:


> While I do love the 24-70 indoors, I keep the 40mm pancake on for the most part just for the reduced weight and ease of grabbing snapshots of the fam.



It's kind of sad that the latest and greatest $2300 normal zoom from Canon is *still* f/2.8 and still without IS, which the 70-200 f/2.8 MkII thrives on. When the 11 times cheaper 40 f/2.8 can get the job done indoors, it's almost startling.


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 7, 2012)

Kliphten said:


> Thanks for all the great input! I'm not sure if it has helped or made my decision harder, though
> 
> I think I'm going to go with the 70-200 first and then probably pick up the 24-70 when it is more readily available.



Kliphten, my wife took this shot with 5d III + 70-200 f2.8 IS II in with jpeg ;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 7, 2012)

Kliphten said:


> ...most of my shooting will be of my kids/family and will consist of indoor and outdoor shots equally.





Kliphten said:


> I think I'm going to go with the 70-200 first and then probably pick up the 24-70 when it is more readily available.



I think that's a great choice!

Some examples from me...




EOS 5D Mark II, EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM @ 70mm, 1/250 s, f/2.8, ISO 100




EOS 5D Mark II, EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM @ 70mm, 1/640 s, f/2.8, ISO 100




EOS 1D X, EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM @ 70mm, 1/200 s, f/2.8, ISO 100


----------



## gmrza (Oct 7, 2012)

If you don't already have the 5DIII, the cheaper option may be to get the 5DIII + 24-70 f/2.8II kit - that could save you up to $500 on the bundle. While that does leave you without the longer lens for a few months, but may save you a bit of money.


----------



## Razor2012 (Oct 8, 2012)

rpt said:


> Indoors on 5D3? In my head 24-70 wins hands down unless you live in a palace with 100 ft long rooms



Actually before I picked up the 24-70 II, the 70-200 II did an incredible job indoors (and still does). There was a couple of shoots I did and never had to use flash the whole time (because of being paired up with the 5DIII). Was really impressed with shots @12800 too, can't say enough about this lens.


----------



## rpt (Oct 9, 2012)

Razor2012 said:


> rpt said:
> 
> 
> > Indoors on 5D3? In my head 24-70 wins hands down unless you live in a palace with 100 ft long rooms
> ...


I am sure you got great shots. I hear it is a great lens. Could you post some photographs? We're you shooting at the 70mm end?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 9, 2012)

rpt said:


> Indoors on 5D3? In my head 24-70 wins hands down unless you live in a palace with 100 ft long rooms









^^ Indoor shot with the *600mm* f/4L IS II on FF. I don't live in a palace... 



rpt said:


> I am sure you got great shots. I hear it is a great lens. Could you post some photographs? We're you shooting at the 70mm end?


Below are a couple of indoor shots with the 5DII and 70-200 II, the first at 115mm, the second at 200mm. But I do agree than generally, the 24-70mm would be more useful indoors. Of my indoor shots with the 70-200mm, many are at 70mm.


----------



## Razor2012 (Oct 9, 2012)

Neuro you have some heartbreakers there.


----------



## rpt (Oct 9, 2012)

Thanks neuro! Wow, those are great. The 600mm shot blew me away.
I take back what I said earlier


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 9, 2012)

rpt said:


> Thanks neuro! Wow, those are great. The 600mm shot blew me away.
> I take back what I said earlier



LOL, and thanks. No - you were right...while the 70-200mm focal range _can_ be used indoors (and longer lenses, obviously), I think the 24-70mm is a lot more useful. I've got a lot more indoor shots with my 24-105mm and 35L than with my 70-200 II.


----------



## rpt (Oct 9, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> rpt said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks neuro! Wow, those are great. The 600mm shot blew me away.
> ...


See, that's what I was thinking, but your 600mm shot blew me away 
I have been using 28-80 on my AE1, the 17-55 on my 300D and now the 24-105 on the 5D3 for almost all of my indoor shots. I can see that one can use the 70-200 more or less near the 70 to 100mm zone and some candids near the 200mm zone. But that 600mm shot I would never have imagined


----------



## billatthemovies (Oct 9, 2012)

I have a 70-200mm F4 IS on a 5D Mark II. It is a phenomenal lens and lighter than any of the 2.8s.

Now, having said that, I have been considering the 2.8 you are mulling over because my son plays hockey and not all the rinks are well lit. I purchased the F4 when the vast majority of my telephoto shots would be outside and my camera at the time was not FF.


----------



## Razor2012 (Oct 9, 2012)

billatthemovies said:


> I have a 70-200mm F4 IS on a 5D Mark II. It is a phenomenal lens and lighter than any of the 2.8s.
> 
> Now, having said that, I have been considering the 2.8 you are mulling over because my son plays hockey and not all the rinks are well lit. I purchased the F4 when the vast majority of my telephoto shots would be outside and my camera at the time was not FF.



I can't comment on the 70-200 F4 matchup with the 5DII, but on the otherhand, the 70-200 2.8II with the 5DIII is an awesome pair. With that combo I don't think you'd have a problem with indoor rinks at all.


----------

