# 24-70 IS ii v 70-200 IS ii



## Dreamer (Mar 20, 2013)

Hi all. Im relatively new to the world of photography compared with what appears to be a plethora of experience here. I guess therefore i categorise myself as a hobbyist that merely dreams of being able to enter the realms of engaging in right brain work like this as a full time experience one day.

I currently own a 5D Mk3, 50 1.4, 24-70L 2.8. I shoot anything of visual interest - i cant really say what my preference is. My question is whether it is worth selling my 24-70 to upgrade to mk2 or whether i get the same bang for my buck with the extra reach of the 70-200. My inclination is to the latter - mainly because of the reach, although the weight has been mentioned as being prohibitive (particularly as a travel lens). But i struggle to understand how 860g versus 1500g can really come into the equation??

Your highly valued opinions would be much appreciated.


----------



## Dreamer (Mar 20, 2013)

post script: I must have been dreaming of wanting IS on the 24-70 also . apologies


----------



## TM (Mar 20, 2013)

I have the 50 f1.4, sold a 24-70 f2.8 I and replaced with the Mark II, and also own the 70-200mm f2.8 II. I'd get the 70-200 first, then replace the 24-70 later. That being said, the 24-70 Mark II is well worth the upgrade, but would prefer the versatility first.


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 20, 2013)

stick with the 24-70 mk1 for now get the 70-200 while you are waiting for an IS 24-70 to come out by that time you will have easily saved the $4000 that canon will charge for it


----------



## RGF (Mar 20, 2013)

Dreamer said:


> Hi all. Im relatively new to the world of photography compared with what appears to be a plethora of experience here. I guess therefore i categorise myself as a hobbyist that merely dreams of being able to enter the realms of engaging in right brain work like this as a full time experience one day.
> 
> I currently own a 5D Mk3, 50 1.4, 24-70L 2.8. I shoot anything of visual interest - i cant really say what my preference is. My question is whether it is worth selling my 24-70 to upgrade to mk2 or whether i get the same bang for my buck with the extra reach of the 70-200. My inclination is to the latter - mainly because of the reach, although the weight has been mentioned as being prohibitive (particularly as a travel lens). But i struggle to understand how 860g versus 1500g can really come into the equation??
> 
> Your highly valued opinions would be much appreciated.



Does your current 24-70 give you adequate results?
Do you need a longer lens?

THen get the 70-200. First cover all the bases then upgrade


----------



## AudioGlenn (Mar 20, 2013)

since you have a 50, I'd sell the 24-70 I and get a 70-200. I love that lens. I sold my 50mm 1.4 when I got the 24-70 II.


----------



## hawaiisunsetphoto (Mar 20, 2013)

Seems to be a general consensus here... another option though would be sell the 24-70L, get the version II, and pick up a 135L f/2... Though the 135L is not as versatile as the zoom....


----------



## Dreamer (Mar 20, 2013)

Thanks for all the opinions thus far. Would also be interested to know given the slight consensus appearing for me to go with the 70-200, with such versatility, why do some maintain the 24-70 given the cost?

Cheers


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 20, 2013)

Dreamer said:


> why do some maintain the 24-70 given the cost?


24-70mm is generally the most used focal length (general purpose focal range) for most people ... but that may not hold true for some people ... but majority of my photos are usually made with that focal length ... I suppose that is the reason why "some maintain the 24-70". Having said that in your case, since you already have the 24-70, and as others have already recommended, the obvious choice is to get the 70-200mm ... unless if you would like make a lot of ultra wide angle images, in which case you would want to get the 16-35 L or the 17-40 L.



Dreamer said:


> although the weight has been mentioned as being prohibitive (particularly as a travel lens). i struggle to understand how 860g versus 1500g can really come into the equation??


If you are calculating 860gms vs 1500gms, it does not sound like much, but you have to remember that you also have to carry your camera (5D MK III) that weighs 860gms (body only, without battery) ... on your travels you obviously would not carry only the 70-200mm lens, you would also pack in your 24-70mm lens + a bag + spare batteries, maybe a filter or two and what not ... when you add all that up you are talking about carrying at least 3500gms (maybe even 4000gms all day) ... now I don't know about the weight being "prohibitive" but carrying 3500gms - 4000gms all day (not counting any other items such as your iPhone, iPad, water bottle, snack etc) does not contribute to a lot of fun especially during your travels. Having said that I did carry my 24-105 f/4 L IS & 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II during my vacation to UK, I carried the combo for 2 days and gave up (due to the added weight), from the 3rd day onwards I only carried the 24-105 for the rest of the holidays.


----------



## timmy_650 (Mar 20, 2013)

I rented the 70-200 IS II this weekend and loved the Lens. I have use the 24-70 2.8 I and it was a nice lens. I haven't been so impressed with a lens in a long time. I am also a hobbyist and read a lot about heavy the 70-200 was but never had used it. When I got it, my first thought was this isn't bad. I left it on my camera for the whole weekend expect to get into an MLS game. Then i got in and put it back on. It is a bit heavy too hang mounted around your neck for a long time. 
I am dreaming about that lens now.


----------



## brad-man (Mar 20, 2013)

You might also consider a Tamron SP24-70 f/2.8 VC. It's sharper than the Canon mk l and it's image stabilization (VC) is as good as Canon's latest IS. At only $1300 it's a serious bargain, much like the Sigma 35. With the money you save, you could pick up a 70-200 f/4L IS to round out your arsenal. Just a thought.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 20, 2013)

brad-man said:


> You might also consider a Tamron SP24-70 f/2.8 VC. It's sharper than the Canon mk l


I have the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC and I agree that it is a good choice but it is definitely not sharper than the 24-70 f/2.8 MK I ... if VC/IS is not important to you, it is better to get the 24-70 f/2.8 MK I (if you can find one).


----------



## bholliman (Mar 20, 2013)

Add a 70-200mm before upgrading your 24-70. You can then upgrade to the 24-70 II later and not miss out on the added versatility of using the 70-200mm focal length in the mean time.


----------



## Dim (Mar 20, 2013)

I would sell 50 f1.4 and buy 5DII with 70-200. It's very usefull to have two cameras with different lenses.


----------



## sanj (Mar 20, 2013)

You need both lenses. 
NO NEED TO SPEND MORE TO GET 24-70 II. 
Best..


----------



## Dreamer (Mar 20, 2013)

Thanks to all who took the time to provide your valuable insights, gained through your own experiences. I sincerely appreciate them.


----------



## Andy_Hodapp (Mar 21, 2013)

If your on a budget, you might want to go for the 200mm F/2.8 L. It is light and autofocuses very quickly, I just got mine yesterday and already have fallen in love with it. It is light weight so good for traveling and very very sharp. 
Here are some shots I got with mine, they are cropped in slightly and some of them were shot through window glass so it is very impressive how sharp they are. 

















Edit
Also here is a shot of a brick wall wide open, you know, for if your interested in that kind of stuff


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 21, 2013)

Andy_Hodapp said:


> If your on a budget, you might want to go for the 200mm F/2.8 L. It is light and autofocuses very quickly, I just got mine yesterday and already have fallen in love with it. It is light weight so good for traveling and very very sharp.
> Here are some shots I got with mine, they are cropped in slightly and some of them were shot through window glass so it is very impressive how sharp they are.


Like this second image ... very nice, beautiful colors. That looks like one tack sharp lens Congratulations on your purchase ... since 2009 I've considered getting the 200 f/2.8 L on several occasions but somehow never made up my mind and for better or worse I finally ended up buying the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II in 2010, but I still look at the 200 L prime with envy.


----------



## Scott_McPhee (Mar 21, 2013)

What's the best price and on-line retailer in the UK for buying a EF 24-70mm F/2.8 L II USM?

I'm still searching for a decent on-line point to buy lenses.


----------



## pierceography (Mar 21, 2013)

I was in the same boat five months ago. Already owned the 24-70mm f/2.8L, and was trying to decide between upgrading to the mark 2, or buy a 70-200mm f/2.8L II. I didn't have enough capital for both, and eventually decided to go with the versatility of having both lenses over just the 24-70ii. Hard to take pictures between 70 and 200mm when you don't have a lens in that range. 

That being said, I currently have my 24-70mm mk1 on craigslist and hope someone bites before this current rebate expires. I'm really hoping to pick up the mark 2 before the end of the month.


----------



## DigitalDivide (Mar 21, 2013)

I have the 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II and I would agree with many others that this is an excellent choice to widen your range of focal lengths. You already have the wide to mild tele range covered with your 24-70, so unless you want to go ultra-wide or super-tele this is a good pairing. I would go with the 24-70 II only if you are finding the mk I inadequate for your purposes, which you didn't mention.

I also had concerns about the weight after reading the reviews. Although I am not particularly big or brawny I haven't found it to be a problem. In large part I think this is down to the bag and strap I use. Based on advice from this forum I got a BlackRapid RS-4 strap, which I love. I also acquired a messenger style bag just big enough for my 5DII, 24-105mm f/4 L and the 70-200 (I think the 24-70 would fit fine in place of the 24-105). Along with a 1.4x III TC for greater reach, and an extension tube for occasional close-ups, this forms my "light" travel kit for trips when I am toting baggage and a computer around as well. The messenger style bag keeps the weight close to your body, reducing back strain, and the bag will also slip over the handle of a standard aircraft roll-aboard case for easy carrying in transit.

Once I am at my destination, I put the bag over one shoulder and the camera over the other. The BR strap allows the camera to hang upside-down at the waist, and the weight is balanced by the lens and accessories in the bag. I find I can walk or hike for quite some time without tiring or experiencing muscle strain, as I used to before I got this bag and strap setup.

As someone mentioned, the 70-200 f/4 L IS is also an excellent lens with significantly less weight and cost than the f/2.8 version. It is comparable in sharpness, has a slightly lower minimum focus distance, and is fine as long as you don't need the extra stop or narrower depth of field. For greater reach, there is also the 70-300 L to consider.


----------



## brad-man (Mar 21, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> brad-man said:
> 
> 
> > You might also consider a Tamron SP24-70 f/2.8 VC. It's sharper than the Canon mk l
> ...



I also have the Tamron and love it. Though I have no personal experience with the original 24-70L, virtually _every_ review I have read (including Roger @ LR and our favorite-DxOmark) says that not only is it sharper than ver 1, it is a close second to version 2. The price and VC are just gravey...


----------



## Andy_Hodapp (Mar 22, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Andy_Hodapp said:
> 
> 
> > If your on a budget, you might want to go for the 200mm F/2.8 L. It is light and autofocuses very quickly, I just got mine yesterday and already have fallen in love with it. It is light weight so good for traveling and very very sharp.
> ...



Thank you very much. I tried to match the colors as much as possible as they were in real life because I was shooting through a tinted glass window that really skewed the colors. I'm a little envious towards your 70-200, I've tried the 70-200 and the only thing it seems to be worse at is distortion and vignetting.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 23, 2013)

brad-man said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > brad-man said:
> ...


Ha ha ha ... don't drag me there ;D ;D ;D


brad-man said:


> Roger @ LR and our favorite-DxOmark says that not only is it sharper than ver 1, it is a close second to version 2. The price and VC are just gravey...


I'm no expert like Roger of LR or DxO but in my very limited experience I found the sharpness of EF 24-70 L & 24-70 VC to be in distinguishable ... but when it comes to the sharpness of EF 24-70 L II the Tamron is no match ... I had the 24-70 L II, unfortunately it was stolen ... bcoz I could not pay another $2200, so I went with the 24-70 VC plus I got it for over $250 less than the regular US price ... its a brilliant lens and worth the money but if I could, I would still go with the 24-70 L II.


----------

