# 24-70 MK II or 70-200 MK II?



## candyman (Sep 30, 2012)

I am going FF in October with 5D MKIII
I would like to add the 24-70 f/2.8 MK II. I like the aperture f/2.8 & zoom flexibility in one lens for indoor photography.
However, maybe the 70-200 f/2.8 MK II may be a better option. I don’t have experience on the different ranges (from 24 to 200) on a FF, just the crop (7d) So, I don’t know what I will notice or miss.
I couldn’t check all my files but I would say 1/3 of my photos are between 24-70, 1/3 between 70-200 and 1/3 between 200 to 300mm.
I currently own a 24-105mm for walk around. I really like this zoom for outdoor photography because it is giving me a good range which is important to me.
I currently own a 70-300mm L for sports mainly (with my 7D) but as walk around lens as well (small , not too heavy)
What would you do? 24-70 MK II or 70-200 MK II?


Ps (I will also add the 135mm f/2 to my primes)


----------



## scarbo (Sep 30, 2012)

candyman said:


> I am going FF in October with 5D MKIII
> I would like to add the 24-70 f/2.8 MK II. I like the aperture f/2.8 & zoom flexibility in one lens for indoor photography.
> However, maybe the 70-200 f/2.8 MK II may be a better option. I don’t have experience on the different ranges (from 24 to 200) on a FF, just the crop (7d) So, I don’t know what I will notice or miss.
> I couldn’t check all my files but I would say 1/3 of my photos are between 24-70, 1/3 between 70-200 and 1/3 between 200 to 300mm.
> ...


Since you use these focal distances equally, I would get the 70-200 II first. Its price has settled more, as has the manufacturing process, so there appears to be less variation between lenses. Later you can pick up the 24-70 II when it has experienced the same.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 30, 2012)

It's really a focal length decision. 

The equivalents on APS-C are 15-44mm and 44-125mm. 

You already have two great (if slow) lenses for FF - I'd wait until you get the new body, and see where the f/2.8 would give the most benefit. For me, it's 70-200, but I'll likely get the 24-70 II at some point.


----------



## candyman (Sep 30, 2012)

scarbo said:


> candyman said:
> 
> 
> > I am going FF in October with 5D MKIII
> ...




That's a very good reminder. You're probably right that the first shipments may have varations. The lens is very tempting but your reminder is keeping my both feet on the ground.


----------



## candyman (Sep 30, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> It's really a focal length decision.
> 
> The equivalents on APS-C are 15-44mm and 44-125mm.
> 
> You already have two great (if slow) lenses for FF - I'd wait until you get the new body, and see where the f/2.8 would give the most benefit. For me, it's 70-200, but I'll likely get the 24-70 II at some point.




Indeed there is no hurry to buy the camera and lens at the same time. Good advice to hold on a bit and first use the FF camera with my existing lenses. Giving me more clue. Patience is good. Exitement is high


----------



## pierceography (Sep 30, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> The equivalents on APS-C are 15-44mm and 44-125mm.



Pretty sure your math is backwards. Crop focal lengths would be 38-112mm, and 112-320mm for the 24-70mm and 70-200mm respectively.

But my vote is the 70-200mm. Awesome lens, and has settled in price and manufacturing, as already pointed out by scarbo.


----------



## candyman (Sep 30, 2012)

I think that Neuro is saying; the experience of range for 24-105 (cropcamera) on a FF camera, is like 15-44 on the crop camera. Coming from a crop camera and going to a FF


----------



## Random Orbits (Sep 30, 2012)

70-200 II first. There are many high speed primes that compete with zooms in the 24-70mm range (24, 35, 50 and 85) that offer at least a 2 stop advantage over the f/2.8 zooms. You might find that a mid focal length prime would complement your 24-105 better than the 24-70 II.


----------



## DB (Sep 30, 2012)

pierceography said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > The equivalents on APS-C are 15-44mm and 44-125mm.
> ...



No, it is not. He's saying that the 24-70mm lens on a new FF body would be the equivalent of 15-44mm on what he's using now (7D)


----------



## sdsr (Sep 30, 2012)

Since you already have good lenses that cover the range you use, the question isn't so much what proportion of your shots are in various focal ranges but how often you want or need the advantages of being able to go to f/2.8. Depending on what you shoot, if your main concern is low light performance, you will likely be pleasantly surprised at how well your new FF camera does even with a slowish lens. If your concern is background blur, that's another matter altogether - and you've already committed to the 135/f.2, which is pretty amazing in that department. 

So if I were you, I would wait until I had the camera and then rent either or both f/2.8 lenses and see if they're an improvement over what you have for what you shoot. (And if you do that, compare the results you get with your 70-300 at 300 with the 70-200 at 200 cropped to an equivalent image; you might then decide that you really like the 70-200 you don't need to keep the 70-300.... And so on.)


----------



## Act444 (Sep 30, 2012)

pierceography said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > The equivalents on APS-C are 15-44mm and 44-125mm.
> ...



No, that's right too. Comes out to be the same thing, perspective wise. A good indicator for exactly how much reach one would lose when going to FF. 24mm is fine for me on 1.6x but is significantly wider on FF (which would actually make it usable indoors in small rooms). Consequently I think the 24-105 becomes 15-66 from an APS-C perspective, which seems like a decent range for a walkaround. 105mm even on APS-C is too short for many shots (at least for me). Would be interesting to see the perspective of the 70-200 on FF though. Seems like the 70mm end would be MUCH more useful (I find it awkward on 1.6x)...but obviously would have to get quite a bit closer on the long end, which is fine for events I guess, but bad for sports.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 30, 2012)

pierceography said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > The equivalents on APS-C are 15-44mm and 44-125mm.
> ...



DB is correct. My point was to put the lenses the OP _wants_ in terms of their equivalent focal length on the camera that the OP _has_, which seems the most useful comparison.


----------



## pierceography (Sep 30, 2012)

candyman said:


> I think that Neuro is saying; the experience of range for 24-105 (cropcamera) on a FF camera, is like 15-44 on the crop camera. Coming from a crop camera and going to a FF



Gotcha, my bad! Serves me right for reading posts on my iPad while trying to update my fantasy team. ;-)


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 30, 2012)

like many, I'm holding off on a 24-70 purchase. Not because of any concern about early production, (they have been churning them out for a few months now) merely because I have enough lenses that I can wait until the price drops. I almost wished I had one yesterday, but my 24-105L was actually a better zoom ratio, and I used f/5.6 in any event. Its the first time for my 2nd 5D Mark II, the lens was AFMA'd, and the results were sharp.


----------



## RuneL (Sep 30, 2012)

I really love the 24-70 because of the focal length being more or less perfect for everything but sports (but for sports I actually find the 70-200 to be on the short end, you need a 400 too, IMO). I'd definitely get the 24-70, without knowing what you intend to shoot. My basic setup would be: 16-35, 24-70, 70-200, then you are pretty much covered. And that is what I have, plus the 50 1.2-


----------



## sovietdoc (Sep 30, 2012)

Asking if you need 24-70 or 70-200 is like asking if you need Porsche or Range Rover. Both are great but are used for completely different things.


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 1, 2012)

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

1. The 24-70 II is SUPER for indoor. This lens is sharp end to end, AF is fast(faster than 70-200 f2.8 IS II). It has little distortion at 24mm I now have this lens attachs to my 5D III at all time.

2. 70-200 f2.8 IS II - another SUPER lens. AF is fast and SHARP end to end. Perfect lens when my kids are running around the front yard or playground.

To me, both 24-70 II & 70-200 f2.8 IS II are SUPER. I use 24-70 II for indoor and 70-200 f2.8 IS II for outdoor, when extra reach is needed.

My 2 cents: I would sell your 24-105 and use that money to buy 24-70 II and 70-200 f2.8 IS II.


----------



## tron (Oct 1, 2012)

70-200 IS II. The 24-105 may NOT be considered by some 24-70 2.8 maniacs as excellent but it is at least very good. Plus it is always nice to 1: Have some overlapping focal lengthso as to avoid changing lenses all the time and 2: Having IS.

Your choice...


----------



## MARKOE PHOTOE (Oct 1, 2012)

Lots of good advice given herein. For my 2 cents worth, I own the 24-70II, 70-200II and th 70-300L and shoot with both the 5D3 and 7D.

For me and my work, adding the new 24-70II was a great purchase due to its sharpness, speed and color renditions. I typically carry 3 or 4 primes for just that reason however the new 24-70 makes me re-think that decision. The 24-70 + your existing 70-300L will give you a nice range.

Don't get me wrong, the 70-200II is an incredible lens in all respects but not as portable as the 70-300L and suits most of my needs for range. I've found that the 70-200II works well (fast focusing) with 1.4x and 2.0x TC's for sports.

Best of luck, welcome to the world of FF.


----------



## willis (Oct 1, 2012)

You can find 24-105 F4L from 2nd hand pretty easily and bit cheaper, so if you want it so badly just look for ebay or some other 2nd shops. 8)


----------



## mingyuansung (Oct 1, 2012)

By the way, may I ask a non related question? Should I upgrade from 24-70 MK I to MK II? I have 24-70 MK I and 70-200 MK II. I have 24-70 MK I on my 7D all the time. 70-200 MK II when I am shooting stage performance when I can not get close. 70-200 is too heavy to carry all the time.


----------



## Joe Goh (Oct 3, 2012)

I've been asking myself a very similar question: get the 24-70mm II or the 70-200 2.8 II? I've never had prior versions of both, and my current collection of L lenses includes the 17-40 f/4, the 50L and the 100L macro 2.8 IS.

After hearing all sides of the responses, I can surmise that it really depends on your subjects, expected shooting distances and typical lighting conditions vs available light.

Here's a question to throw into the mix: if the OP wants flexibility of the 24-70 with some extra reach but without the needed bulk, what about investing in the 24-70 II + a 3rd party extender like the 1.4x or 2.0x (Canon's own extenders are not compatible)? :

I'd of course presume that with this combo, the excellent sharpness, lack of CA and slight distortion of the new 24-70 will all be degraded slightly with the extender, but the penalty's not that severe hopefully. Extenders from makers like Kenko or Sigma are suggested. Anyone has actually tried such pairings before? 

Cheers, Joe


----------

