# Going to get the 24-70 2.8 II. Want a 70-200 as well



## surfer57 (Jan 12, 2013)

Have the money to get the 24-70 2.8 II to pair with my 1Dx. It seems like a no brainer to me. I'll be using for event photography, portraits and will be getting into weddings. That said I'd really like to have a 70-200 as I love that range and use it often whether for surf photography or something else. Given the ISO performance on the 1Dx do I need IS (I really don't have enough money for the 2.8 IS II but may be able to swing the ver I)? Could I even go to f4 with good results or will I be spoiled by the sharpness of the 24-70?


----------



## jabbott (Jan 12, 2013)

I shoot with the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II and f/4L IS on a 5D3 and nowadays I hardly use the f/2.8 version unless I'm shooting indoors. The f/4 is just so much easier to carry around for everyday use and it seems equally sharp in my experience. As for IS, I generally find it useful on 100mm+ focal lengths but usually not so much on anything shorter. I tend to shoot outdoors though.

The ISO 12233 charts on the-digital-picture.com under each lens review are a good place to compare how sharp all of the 70-200 lenses are at varying apertures and focal lengths. They also recently posted the 24-70 II so you could compare against that.


----------



## vuilang (Jan 12, 2013)

Why would you have enough money for the 1DX n 24-70II but not 70-200II??
if money is an issue with getting 70-200IIIS, I would have get 5d3+24-70II+70-200II.


----------



## RVB (Jan 12, 2013)

Best to wait until you can afford the 70-200 mk2,just grab the 24-70mk2 now,I have the 70-200 mk2 and its worth saving for..


----------



## rs (Jan 12, 2013)

If you're at all worried about perfection (your choice of 1D X and 24-70 II indicate you are), you will not be happy with the performance of the original 70-200/2.8 IS at anything brighter than f4. So why have the mk I when the f4 IS version can do everything that lens can do well while being cheaper, smaller, lighter, and optically better? Also, when shooting Tv the lens can't open up to apertures with sub par performance. 

Having said that, the 70-200 II really is something else, and that is the one you'll be thinking of should you settle for anything less. You chose f2.8 for the normal zoom to stop action, so why not get the same for you tele zoom?


----------



## vbi (Jan 12, 2013)

As good as the 24-70II is the 70-200II is even better, and IMHO noticeably better than the 70-200 F4 IS. With the 24-70II and the 70-200II you are future-proofing your investment if you ever decide to upgrade to a future 36MP+ body (and it will come eventually) where to 70-200 F4 just won't cut it.

I base my observation on my 7D which has about a 46MP FF pixel density and the difference between the 24-70I and the 24-70II as well as the 70-200II vs the 70-200 F4 is clear as day.


----------



## BrandonKing96 (Jan 12, 2013)

If you're comfortable with the f/2.8 (IS I even) then you should just go for it. But I use the f/4 IS because of how lightweight it is and the fact it still offers beautiful optics. I wouldn't mind an upgrade on them though but it's still a great lens. Of course it doesn't beat the f/2.8 IS II though. Right now I'm using the 5D mark III with a 24-70 II and 70-200 f/4 IS and I find myself reaching for the 24-70 II more often anyway.


----------



## surfer57 (Jan 12, 2013)

vuilang said:


> Why would you have enough money for the 1DX n 24-70II but not 70-200II??
> if money is an issue with getting 70-200IIIS, I would have get 5d3+24-70II+70-200II.



What does this have to do with anything? I'm not asking you to consider my money issues. I have the 1Dx because I worked hard to save up for it and wanted the speed when shooting surfing which is primarily what I do. I now have once again saved up a bit more money so would like to add to my gear. I'll just add the 24-70 for now as I'd really like to have a good normal zoom in the bag.


----------



## iso79 (Jan 12, 2013)

Just pick up the non-IS version. It goes for $1200 right now. It's also arguably sharper than the II.


----------



## robbymack (Jan 12, 2013)

Shooting surfing with the 70-200 do you find yourself wanting a teleconverter or do you have some other longer glass? If you want a teleconverter then I'd definitely wait till I could afford the IS ii. Most (all) surfing shots will be done in relatively decent light so I don't think you'd be at all disappointed in a 70-200 f4IS for surfing for events its also not bad just cant be afraid to crank the iso or bring a speedlight. My copy is bonkers wide open and even though I would love the IS ii I just can't see how it's going to be twice as good (by price) especially for my needs. Personally I'd rather spend the cash on a 300 or 400mm prime than upgrade my 70-200.


----------



## jhpeterson (Jan 12, 2013)

I agree with iso79. If you really can't afford the MkII, then get the f:2.8 non-IS version, as you won't be happy with MkI. I've had all three and there's a noticeable difference in IQ between the IS models. The non-IS, though an older design by several years, falls somewhere in between.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jan 13, 2013)

RVB said:


> Best to wait until you can afford the 70-200 mk2,just grab the 24-70mk2 now,I have the 70-200 mk2 and its worth saving for..


+1


----------



## Harv (Jan 13, 2013)

iso79 said:


> Just pick up the non-IS version. It goes for $1200 right now. It's also arguably sharper than the II.



That's just plain wrong. I have had every version and can state categorically that the 70-200 2.8L IS II is far sharper than the non-IS version. Not even close.

This can also be verified at the Digital Picture.....
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=242&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0


----------



## RMC33 (Jan 13, 2013)

One thing. If you plan on using the 70-200 for surfing you will be very disappointed. I can only assume you have a 300 or 400 and a 1.4 or 2.0 TC. Even @ 200 in most conditions you would have to be right on the waters edge and having to crop a lot.

Like everyone else has stated: The MkII is very very sharp and having just AMFA/Aperture sharpness tested both my MkI/II I can see a very noticeable difference paired to all 3 of my bodies between the two versions of the lens. I have kept my MK I as a backup since it is still a very good lens, but if quality is important (and it seems to be for you) get the MK II.


----------



## brad-man (Jan 13, 2013)

If you are going to be shooting surfing regularly, you may want to test drive the EF100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS. It's a great lens for the beach.


----------



## BrandonKing96 (Jan 13, 2013)

brad-man said:


> If you are going to be shooting surfing regularly, you may want to test drive the EF100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS. It's a great lens for the beach.


+1


----------



## ewg963 (Jan 13, 2013)

brad-man said:


> If you are going to be shooting surfing regularly, you may want to test drive the EF100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS. It's a great lens for the beach.


 Aye aye on that I'm not taking anything away from the 70-200mm 2.8 IS or Non Is both great lenses but you will need the reach of at least 300mm. I have both 70-200 2.8 Non Is and 100-400mm 4.5-5.6. I find myself using the latter for the water sports.


----------



## AdamJ (Jan 13, 2013)

I use both the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II and the 70-200mm f/4 IS. You won't be disappointed with the optics of either. I find it practically impossible to discern any IQ difference in the copies I have.

The f/2.8 II is more practical if you intend using teleconverters. On the other hand, I would consider the f/4 IS as a lightweight lens whereas the f/2.8 IS II is in the heavyweight class. If I were heading for a beach, I would definitely be packing the f/4 IS.

If I had to choose one, I'd have the f/2.8 II but only because of its versatility, not for any IQ reasons.


----------



## discojuggernaut (Jan 13, 2013)

I agree on the focal length front. 300 or 400mm reach is the starting point. I'd suggest 70-200 mkii + a teleconverter, or a 70-300L, 100-400, or a 300/400 prime, or a combination of any of these with a 7d/1d4. Depending on the spot, even 300mm is pretty short. I shoot surfing with a 300 2.8 IS + 1.4x on a 5d3 and am anxiously awaiting a new 7d2 so that i can get that extra reach back (and FPS).


----------



## Pixelsign (Jan 13, 2013)

if there is no more money for the 70-200 II, i would buy the tamron 24-70 (with vibration control!) instead of the canon 24-70 II. the tamron costs only half the price and is a very good performer. and then some money should be left over for the 70-200 II


----------



## surfer57 (Jan 13, 2013)

I have a long lens for shooting from the beach already so the 70-200 wasn't going to fill that need, granted I do find myself pulled back to 200mm often for a more landscape style shot. 

Instead of going longer after a bit of thinking for the future I instead went with the 16-35mm. I could use something wide as I only have a 10mm fisheye that I shoot with in the water on my 30D. In the future I'll be getting a housing for the 1Dx and the 16-35 is a great lens for in the water.


----------



## RMC33 (Jan 14, 2013)

If you are in the water often I would say that is a great investment. I find myself using my 70-200 mainly for kayaking, skateboarding, bmx and some skiing (I do some close quarters stuff too with an 8-15 fish) as the distances are not that great.


----------



## ewg963 (Jan 17, 2013)

Harv said:


> iso79 said:
> 
> 
> > Just pick up the non-IS version. It goes for $1200 right now. It's also arguably sharper than the II.
> ...


Thanks for the info Harv. I have the 70-200mm 2.8 now I like the test results for the IS II


----------



## Pixel (Jan 17, 2013)

Harv said:


> iso79 said:
> 
> 
> > Just pick up the non-IS version. It goes for $1200 right now. It's also arguably sharper than the II.
> ...


Agreed, I wouldn't consider an original even if it were free. Go with the EF70-200 F4L IS until you can afford the 2.8.


----------



## surfer57 (Jan 17, 2013)

Got the lenses yesterday and am beyond happy with my choices. Just shooting around the house and the beach a bit the past two days. Super fast autofocus, quick to lock on in low light also. Feel so much better on the 1DX than my non L primes which were my go to's prior. Whether I get the 70-200 or a waterhousing for the 1DX next will depend on what the majority of my work is moving into the spring.


----------



## acaurora (Jan 22, 2013)

One thing I don't see anyone suggesting here is to try using a lens rental service to see which works better for you - I use BorrowLenses.com but I know there are other services out there that you can try a lens out - it is how I came to determine I wanted the 70-200 f/2.8L II.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jan 22, 2013)

Pixel said:


> Agreed, I wouldn't consider an original even if it were free.



That's a bit extreme, isn't it? The Mark Is are excellent lenses- I just upgraded to the Mark II IS but I still like the background blur of my first one more. Wish I could post a comparison, but for some reason I can't upload anything to this site.
Besides, I bet IS wouldn't be of much help at the speeds one shoots surfing anyway. 
Although I agree that in this case, f/4 IS would work fine- but after I tried the f/2.8 IS I was so smitten that I avoided buying the f/4 and waited to save up for the Mark I and then the Mark II.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jan 22, 2013)

surfer57 said:


> Have the money to get the 24-70 2.8 II to pair with my 1Dx. It seems like a no brainer to me. I'll be using for event photography, portraits and will be getting into weddings. That said I'd really like to have a 70-200 as I love that range and use it often whether for surf photography or something else. Given the ISO performance on the 1Dx do I need IS (I really don't have enough money for the 2.8 IS II but may be able to swing the ver I)? Could I even go to f4 with good results or will I be spoiled by the sharpness of the 24-70?



200mm is a bit on the short side for surfing


----------



## tomscott (Jan 22, 2013)

I have the 70-200mm L 2.8 non IS and it is wonderful but you do need to be careful. I have a pretty steady hand and have learned to get used to it and alter the shutter speed to compensate. I also use it with a 2x converter and get great results to reduce weight in the bag.




IMG_0474 by tom_scott88, on Flickr

Thats a shot I took for my local newspaper covering a new development with an old 40D and the 70-200 with a 2x MKII extender F8 1/640 ISO 200 at 400mm (or 640mm as it would be on a crop camera with the 2x)

But the IS is brilliant and if I could afford it would I get it!? Without doubt.

But in terms of sharpness of the 2.8 it goes in this order.

70-200mm L F2.8 IS II
70-200mm L F2.8
70-200mm L F2.8 IS I

The non IS is a tad sharper than the VI IS. But I dont think you would notice. The 70-200mm L is about to be discontinued form the range and is a great price point as the IS II is nearly twice the price.


----------



## tomscott (Jan 22, 2013)

Also another couple of examples 70mm at F5.6 ISO100 shooting a BMW Z4M




BMW Z4M Coupe with CSL wheels by tom_scott88, on Flickr

with some extension tubes 1/50s F2.8 ISO500 on a tripod.




IMG_9407 by tom_scott88, on Flickr

BTCC Panning F5.6 1/200s ISO100




320si BTCC by tom_scott88, on Flickr

Antony Gormley another place, 145mm F4 1/400 ISO 400



Another Place, Antony Gormley, Crosby Beach, Liverpool by tom_scott88, on Flickr

Antony Gormley another place, 200mm F2.8 1/500 ISO 400




Another Place, Antony Gormley, Crosby Beach, Liverpool by tom_scott88, on Flickr

Lowther Castle, F4.5 1/250 ISO 320 130mm




Lowther Castle by tom_scott88, on Flickr

Penrith, F8 1/1000s 140mm with a 2x extender(280mm) ISO400



Penrith, Cumbria, South toward Ullswater by tom_scott88, on Flickr

Scarecrow, F11 200mm with 2x extender (400mm) ISO 200 1/320s



Scarecrow by tom_scott88, on Flickr

I do love this lens.


----------



## rwmson (Jan 22, 2013)

I like the scarecrow shot a lot!


----------



## tomscott (Jan 22, 2013)

Thanks


----------



## surfer57 (Jan 22, 2013)

Great shots. I'm pretty happy with my decision to pick up the 24-70 and 16-35 for now. I have used the 70-200 VII so I know how amazing it is and that is part of why I was so torn. I'll use the other lens to make some money shooting weddings and what not. The toughest part will be deciding whether to pick up the lens or an SPL waterhousing for the 1DX next.


----------

