# 24-70 2.8f II or 70-200 2.8f II



## jaydafly12 (May 29, 2013)

First timer on the Forum looking to get some opinions on these two lenses 

Ok so i'm planning on getting the 5d mark III here pretty soon and I wanted to get some opinions on what lens I should get with it first, the 24-70 2.8f II or the 70-200 2.8f II? I plan on having both of them at some point in time but for now I just want one or the other.

p.s. Some of my main subject matter is going to be events i.e. weddings, birthday parties and an occasional sporting event.


----------



## charlesa (May 29, 2013)

That's a tough one, but would take the 24-70 first.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 29, 2013)

Really, you need both. But a general purpose zoom is called that for a reason. If your only lens is a 70-200, you'll miss a lot of shots because you just can't back up far enough. 

For weddings, a telezoom is almost always needed during the ceremony. For sporting events, the 70-200 would be better.

Honestly, if you can't get both very soon, you need a stopgap. Get the 24-70 II and a longer prime, or the 70-200 II and a shorter prime. For example, the 40/2.8 and the 70-200/2.8 II is a combo that I often use for events. The 40/2.8 goes in my pocket, the 70-200 on a blackrapid strap or spider holster, and when swapping on the pancake, I leave the 70-200 connected to the strap/belt.


----------



## RLPhoto (May 29, 2013)

That's a tough one. Personally I'd get a 5D3 Kit so you have a 24-105L + 70-200LII. Eventually when the time comes, sell the 24-105L and buy the 24-70LII.


----------



## Random Orbits (May 29, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> That's a tough one. Personally I'd get a 5D3 Kit so you have a 24-105L + 70-200LII. Eventually when the time comes, sell the 24-105L and buy the 24-70LII.



+1.


----------



## AudioGlenn (May 29, 2013)

I vote for the 70-200 2.8 IS II and a 40mm pancake!


----------



## Harry Muff (May 29, 2013)

Not to be an arsehole, but it really depends on whether you want to take pictures of things close by or far away.


Only you can decide this one. They're both top class lenses.


----------



## distant.star (May 29, 2013)

Harry Muff said:


> Not to be an arsehole, but it really depends on whether you want to take pictures of things close by or far away.
> 
> Only you can decide this one. They're both top class lenses.



That's about how I see it. You don't really want opinions on lenses, you want opinions of focal lengths.

Given the venues you list, you'll be the star of the show at birthday parties with the 24-70. Everywhere else you'll be limited and doing a lot of cropping. With the 70-200, you'll get great shots at weddings, sporting events, etc., but at birthday parties you'll have lots of pictures of people's noses.

If you can swing it, the advice on going with the kit 24-105 and the 70-200 is sound to me. Otherwise, I agree with the 70-200 and the 40mm as a stand-in until you have a 24-70. The 40mm is a superb lens, and you'll always find uses for it -- could be the best $150 you ever spent on photo equipment.


----------



## J.R. (May 29, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> That's a tough one. Personally I'd get a 5D3 Kit so you have a 24-105L + 70-200LII. Eventually when the time comes, sell the 24-105L and buy the 24-70LII.



+1 ... good, practical advice, unless you can get both together at the outset.


----------



## jaydafly12 (May 29, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Really, you need both. But a general purpose zoom is called that for a reason. If your only lens is a 70-200, you'll miss a lot of shots because you just can't back up far enough.
> 
> For weddings, a telezoom is almost always needed during the ceremony. For sporting events, the 70-200 would be better.
> 
> Honestly, if you can't get both very soon, you need a stopgap. Get the 24-70 II and a longer prime, or the 70-200 II and a shorter prime. For example, the 40/2.8 and the 70-200/2.8 II is a combo that I often use for events. The 40/2.8 goes in my pocket, the 70-200 on a blackrapid strap or spider holster, and when swapping on the pancake, I leave the 70-200 connected to the strap/belt.



I like your suggestion. Didn't really think about having one or the other with a prime. Now the question with having one or the other with a prime is whats the perfect prime to complement either one. I think the 70-200 with a 40 would be nice but then how would you get those wide shots when needed?


----------



## jaydafly12 (May 29, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> That's a tough one. Personally I'd get a 5D3 Kit so you have a 24-105L + 70-200LII. Eventually when the time comes, sell the 24-105L and buy the 24-70LII.



I thought about that too but was turned off by not having the 2.8f option.


----------



## J.R. (May 29, 2013)

jaydafly12 said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > That's a tough one. Personally I'd get a 5D3 Kit so you have a 24-105L + 70-200LII. Eventually when the time comes, sell the 24-105L and buy the 24-70LII.
> ...



Seeing that you do birthday parties and weddings primarily, do you really need f/2.8 all the time? Why not get the kit lens, 70-200 II AND a fast prime?


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 29, 2013)

jaydafly12 said:


> I like your suggestion. Didn't really think about having one or the other with a prime. Now the question with having one or the other with a prime is whats the perfect prime to complement either one. I think the 70-200 with a 40 would be nice but then how would you get those wide shots when needed?



That goes both ways. However, the 24-70 II and the 70-200 II are approximately the same price. A tele prime in the 135-200mm range is several hundred dollars. If you get the 200/2.8, you'll likely not use it after getting the 70-200 II. A 40/2.8 is $150, and given it's conveniently small size, it's useful even after having the 24-70 II.

As for wide shots, someone here (apologies for forgetting who) has pointed out that the 40/2.8 has an exit pupil that's basically at the body, so doing a quick handheld pano shot and stitching the resuting images together is quite easy with that lens, when 40mm isn't wide enough.


----------



## jaydafly12 (May 29, 2013)

J.R. said:


> jaydafly12 said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



true but its always good to have that 2.8f option right?   

and yes those 3 wouldn't be a bad option actually....maybe 70-200 + 40 2.8 and the kit lens. 

Thanks now I have some ideas of what I can put together.


----------



## Hardwire (May 29, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> jaydafly12 said:
> 
> 
> > I like your suggestion. Didn't really think about having one or the other with a prime. Now the question with having one or the other with a prime is whats the perfect prime to complement either one. I think the 70-200 with a 40 would be nice but then how would you get those wide shots when needed?
> ...



To further agree with this, when my kit was stolen and I had to replace quickly I picked up a 5d3, a 70-200 2.8 I (not the 2 for cost saving) 24-70 2.8 II and a 50 1.4 (tho a 1.8 would also work). I find that while the 24-70 is an awesome lens, I still swap out to the 50 a fair amount....so the concept of a 700-200 + a 40 2.8 is not a bad starting place.

If I am honest, if I thought it would be some time before I could get the second of the two main bits of glass I would still consider the 23-105 4 + 70-200 2.8 with a 50 1.4/8 for very low light...but remember the 5d is a fighter in low light so do not be too afraid of F4 as a get-you-by-lens. In fact I know of a well respected wedding photog who only shoots jpg on a 5d2 with the 24-105 4 and gets some great wedding coverage.

Good kit helps, good skills are better.


----------



## vmk (May 29, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> That's a tough one. Personally I'd get a 5D3 Kit so you have a 24-105L + 70-200LII. Eventually when the time comes, sell the 24-105L and buy the 24-70LII.



+1, Eventually I ended up doing this...


----------



## gferdinandsen (May 29, 2013)

Personally I find myself using my 24-70 mk2 almost 80% of my shots, but it has a lot todo with what you are shooting.


----------



## RLPhoto (May 29, 2013)

jaydafly12 said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > jaydafly12 said:
> ...



F/2.8 and F/4 on FF will both give nice soft background's at full zoom. When you get to the really, really low light, I found even f/2.8 isn't fast enough and that's why I still keep my primes.

The 24-105L is a great lens for flash Btw, I always use mine @ 5.6 or smaller.


----------



## Dylan777 (May 29, 2013)

As an owner of both lenses, 24-70 seems to be a better choice for general shooting. 70-200 might not be wide enough indoor. I would go 24-70 first then add 135L for longer end if budget allows. I tried this lens and I like what I see. It's smaller, lighter, and 1stop faster than 70-200. Sharpness is amazing.


----------



## K-amps (May 29, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> jaydafly12 said:
> 
> 
> > I like your suggestion. Didn't really think about having one or the other with a prime. Now the question with having one or the other with a prime is whats the perfect prime to complement either one. I think the 70-200 with a 40 would be nice but then how would you get those wide shots when needed?
> ...



This option is novel and just on that basis alone, I would do it . 

The 24-105 is an ok lens and if i am making money off weddings, I'd get a Loan and invest in the 24-70ii.


----------



## gary (May 29, 2013)

I am fortunate to have both the lenses you are considering and on the basis of what you have said about your subject matter I would take the 24-70 mk2. Both lenses are superb and you will be happy with either but perhaps your limited sports use looses out to the social functions you will be shooting more of and yes the wide end is very useful. Which ever you choose you will be delighted with the quality from the 5d mk3


----------



## jaydafly12 (May 30, 2013)

gary said:


> I am fortunate to have both the lenses you are considering and on the basis of what you have said about your subject matter I would take the 24-70 mk2. Both lenses are superb and you will be happy with either but perhaps your limited sports use looses out to the social functions you will be shooting more of and yes the wide end is very useful. Which ever you choose you will be delighted with the quality from the 5d mk3



Yes thats true...i'm really excited about the 5d mk3 itself but having the right lens to go with it would be a match made in heaven. I think I might get the 70-200 2.8f and the prime lens like the 40 2.8f


----------



## TM (Jun 8, 2013)

My two cents: 
If you shoot indoors most the time, get the 24-70, otherwise, get the 70-200 first.


----------



## scottkinfw (Jun 8, 2013)

Both are great lenses, but the 70-200 2.8L II will give you better (but not great) reach for sports (depending on what sports, and where you are able to position yourself.- you could get a tc however)..




jaydafly12 said:


> First timer on the Forum looking to get some opinions on these two lenses
> 
> Ok so i'm planning on getting the 5d mark III here pretty soon and I wanted to get some opinions on what lens I should get with it first, the 24-70 2.8f II or the 70-200 2.8f II? I plan on having both of them at some point in time but for now I just want one or the other.
> 
> p.s. Some of my main subject matter is going to be events i.e. weddings, birthday parties and an occasional sporting event.


----------



## Zv (Jun 8, 2013)

My own logic would state - go for the 24-70 first, but that's because the wider focal lengths are more useful to me. 70mm can be cropped a bit for portraits. If you went with the 70-200 first you might find it too tight for certain situations where backing up is not possible.


----------



## GoodVendettaPhotography (Jun 14, 2013)

Bite the bullet. If you're serious, you won't regret it. Some photographers say these are the only two lenses that matter outside of speciality lens. Just get them both


----------

