Canon 24-70/2.8L vs 70-200/2.8L Lens

Canon 24-70/2.8L vs 70-200/2.8L Lens

Besides the focal lenght of both, are there any disadvantages

compared to each other. I already have the 28-135/3.5-5.6 USM IS and

70-300/4.0-5.6 USM IS. I finally saved up enough money to get

a "Pro" lens. Since i have the consumer grade lenses at both focal

lengths, I was trying to contemplate which lens Canon 24-70/2.8L vs

70-200/2.8L would be a better buy. I know they are both very good,

but are there any disadvantages compared to each other. Not

considering focal length? Which would you buy?

They are both "L" and you can not simply compare them both cause they are for different purpose type of shooting. one is Wide angle to normal zoom and the other is telephoto zoom. What is your bigger needs? wide angle coverage or telephoto?.

Well I have a Canon 10D so I fall into the 1.6 multiplier category. I find myself mostly shooting people. Not too much landscape. I like doing portraits and candid shots without people knowing I'm there. I was kinda disappointed with the other 2 lenses. I thought it would have been sharper. I would consider a prime, but I shyed away from the 85mm/1.2L prime because it would become about 135mm. I have a 50mm\1.8 and it's a fun/sharp lens, but I find myself moving far back and in awakard positions if I want to get pictures of a large area. That's why I want to get a zoom. My purpose is mostly portraits, people street photography, wedding, parties ..etc. BTW, I know this doesn't count, but the 70-200L lens has the professional white look. ooooooooohhhhh, wish the 24-70 did..

Roger,

 

White look finishing on the lens doesn't make your picture any better does it? for your needs I'd say go with 70-200. I talso just bought the same lens but IS version, actually I own 10D too and also own the 135/2 and 200/2.8 primes but I'd give this 70-200 beast a try.If I don't like it I'll sell it but if I do, I'll sell the 200/2.8 instead since I don't have to buy 85 focal length range to complete my need which is portrait also.

From what you describe, if 50mm is too long, forget the 70-200mm on the 10D. 24-70mm is good but not wide enough. I'd get the 17-40mm f/4L which would effectively be a 27-64mm - best IMO for what you describe.

 

Bogdan

I'd go for the 24-70 f/2.8 L if you really want one of those two as you've got a decent IS-telezoom for tight people pictures and it's lightweight. Carrying a 70-200 f/2.8 L is hardly inconspicuous, and is much heavier than your current telezoom. You get very shallow depth of field at longer focal lengths anyway, and could use the 24-70 at the long end wide open for portraits.

 

And personally I much prefer the 24-70 the way it is - in black. The lab grey colour of the telezoom, its size and so on attract too much attention in any case.

 

I'm in a similar position (although upgrading from Sigma f/2.8s to Canon L-equivalents) but think I'll go for the 70-300 IS DO next. No, I don't mind the green ring either.<div></div>

If you find the 50/1.8 a bit long, then the 17-40/4L is a DEFINATE candidate. PLUS, it expands the coverage of your other lenses.

 

Another lens to consider is the 70-200/4L. Lighter than the 2.8. Cheaper. White. No IS.

 

In fact, the 17-40/4L and 70-200/4L TOGETHER is cheaper than the 24-70/2.8L. A killer combo with the 50/1.8.

I shoot people for the majority of work. I own both the 24-70L and the 70-200L is. They both have their place, and both are excellent for quality of pictures.

 

In general (my own experience) the 24-70 will get 3x the use of the 70-200. I use it on a 1D mk2 (1.3 crop), a 10D and a 300d (I prefer the shots from the 1.6 factor with this lens).

 

The only real problem I see is an occasional miss with the focus when compared to the 70-200 (which almost never misses).

 

IMHO, for the body you use, the 24-70 will be more used.

 

Regards.

Ah, I was typing too quick.

 

Yes, the 24-70/2.8 is a great lens. Also, a very good focal range. In my case, I found doubling the cost to go from 4.0 to 2.8 aperture unattractive.

 

Unfortunately, while canon makes 2.8L and 4.0L versions of wide zooms (ie, the 17-40/4L and 16-35/2.8L) and telephotos (the 70-200's), they do not make a 24-70/4L. Therefore, many people now go with the wide zoom and telezoom, and fill the gap with a 50 prime.

 

If they made a 24-70/4L, I would buy one tomorrow. Instead, I cover this range with 24/2.8, 35/2 and 50/1.8 primes.

no no no I have the 10D ,17-40,24-70,85mm 1.8 and in the 10D the ones I use like 80% of the time .I know the 24-70 are sharper but the ones that get the job done are the 17-40 (if I had a 1D or one of those 1.3 crop factor Iknow I would use the 24-70 100% of the time) in my opinion if you want to make money out of them and get some awesome results get the 16-35 2.8 they great for enviromental portraits and family portraits ,you already got the 50mm which act like a 85mm on the 10D

 

this is what you should do.Buy the 16-35 at Adorama and give them a good try for like 3 days then if you decide they are not worth it return them and get the 24-70. I done it.

I was in a similar situation in regards to lenses. When I bought my 10D I set myself up with the 28-135 IS and 75-300 USM. I was satisfied with the 28-135 but for field sports the 75-300 was too slow. I bit the bullet and sold both lenses and went with the 24-70 f2.8 and the 70-200 f2.8 non IS with a 1.4X TC. It was money well spent. I am going to pick up the 50 f1.8 and am toying with the 17-40 f4 or the 16-35 f2.8.

Forget the 24-70 especially on a 1.6. It is not a useful enough range to warrant the money. Go for the 17-40 or 16-35. If you really want sharp go for the 20/2.8 and 28/2.8. Use your IS zooms when you need flexibility. Get the 200/2.8 when you want a sharp and fast telephoto. Good luck!

>> I would consider a prime, but I shyed away from the 85mm/1.2L prime because it would become about 135mm.

 

I shied away from the 85mm/1.2L prime because it is VERY big and VERY expensive. The 85/1.8 is more than enough for me. Then again, I shoot film.

 

>> I have a 50mm\1.8 and it's a fun/sharp lens, but I find myself moving far back and in awakard positions if I want to get pictures of a large area.

 

Then the 17-40/4 is your best bet. Actually, I'm with Jim. 17-40/4 + 50/1.8 + 70-200/4 is a killer combo.

 

Happy shooting ,

Yakim.

Hmm, I never considered the 17-40 or the 16-35? So on the 10D, the 17-40 will become 27-64 and the 16-35 will become 26-56. I thought when shooting portraits or street photography, the usual focal length people use is 80 to 100mm. I guess with these lenses, I would have to do some sneaker zooming if I am looking for the portrait look? I don't mind that at all. I am also looking for sharpness. With my 2 older lenses, I t was hit or miss with sharpness. Maybe I'm a perfectionist or using wrong technique, but even on a tripod, the pictures wouldn't be sharp, compared to other photos I've seen. I want to step into the wedding arena and I can't &%^@ up the photos if people are paying for it. I want to be confident that my lens is capable of doing the job. The 17-40 seems good and the 24-70 also. I dunno, on father's day I will be going to B&H to pick it up. This is sooooo much fun trying to figure out what my first PRO lens is going to be. I'm getting sooo excited....But I have to figure out what the hell I want to get..lol

Roger,

 

I have the 10D and have gone back and forth with the 24-70 and 17-40. For street

photography, architecture, and YES, even people the 17-40mm is best. Here are 4 pictures

all shot with the 17-40mm at f/4 (wide open). Yes you have to get close but that's what

it's about. 24-70mm is too long. I honestly have no use for that lens in my shooting. I only

have the 17-40mm and the 70-200mm IS which I also use for head shots and isolation,

etc., but I mostly use the 17-40mm. The 70-200 I use for sports, animals, naure at times,

and headshots. At a wedding I'll use my 17-40mm 90% of the time with the 70-200mm

the rest of the 10%. These photos are from my recent trip to Romania. I could perhaps

have gotten these shots with the 24-70mm but not all my other street shots or

architecture shots where I needed 17mm (aka 27mm on the 10D), etc.

 

I shot all these as JPEGs at 5500K for WB and all I did in Photoshop was USM and resize.

You tell me this is not a sharp lens. Screw the reviews - this is sharp. These are all at

40mm BTW. My USM was 15, 50, 0 for contrast and 200, .2, 0.

 

Bogdan<div></div>

Image #2. Again 17-40mm, 40mm @ f/4 (wide open).

 

Bogdan<div></div>

Image #3. Again 17-40mm, 40mm @ f/4 (wide open).

 

Bogdan<div></div>

Image #4. Again 17-40mm, 40mm @ f/4 (wide open).

 

Bogdan

2nd try! Image #4. Again 17-40mm, 40mm @ f/4 (wide open).

 

Bogdan<div></div>

Roger,

 

I forgot to add that while for traditional portraits you DO want a longer focal length

(especially for headshots where you don't want to distort facial features), you can't have it

all in one. That's why I also have the 70-200mm. You could also get the 17-40mm and the

50mm or the 85mm for the 10D. No need for 70-200mm unless you shoot a lot of sports,

conferences, formal portraits, etc. Too expensive. The 17-40mm and a 50 or 85mm would

be ideal and light. Less noticeable. And TRUST me, in photojournalism you do NOT want to

be noticed or draw attention with large lenses, etc. But using a 200mm lens and standing

far back in the shadows to me misses the point of you being involved in the picture taking

process. You get a different feel when you are close to your subject. This is a fear that one

has to overcome - being close to the subject.

 

So again, I'd recommend the 17-40mm and if you want for headshots a 50 or 85mm. That

combo is cheaper than the 70-200mm for which you'd have less use alone.

 

Here's another picture at 17mm @ f/4 (wide open) unmodified except for the same USM

and resizing. I could NOT get this and tons of other shots like it with the 24-70mm. I used

a polarizer here to darken the sky and underexposed. The monk is NOT a statute but

frozen by the shutter. I was waiting for something to walk into my frame to make it more

interesting and dynamic. I used 5200K for this. Another shot at 17mm @ f/4 with a 6000K

warmer WB. See how diverse you can be?

 

So you can go from shots like the above at 40mm @ f/4 to this at 17mm @ f/4.

 

Bogdan<div></div>

Another at 17mm for you to see.

 

Bogdan<div></div>

In your second posting you mentioned that 50mm was too long, hence the idea of the 17-40 and 16-35 instead of the 24-70. Half of the 24-70 may be too long for you as well.

Awesome picture with the church. Very crisp and love the way the polarizer saturates the picture. Hmm, why didn't cannon make an L 17-40 @ 2.8. The only reason i'm hesitating with the 17-40 is the lens is not fast. I know it's a wide angle, but will 4.0 give me enough DOF for portraits? I have a 50mm,1.8, but what if I need to make a candid portrait and have the 17-40 on. Will it have enough DOF?

Bogdan: Excellent advice and samples. I like your work!

 

Roger: A larger aperture/faster lens will produce *less* DOF, not more. Maybe it's just a language/choice of words thing, and by "more DOF" you actually meant "more background blur," but it appears that perhaps you have the relationship between lens speed (maximum aperture) and DOF backwards.

 

If you want maximum background blur (minimum DOF), then that's an additional factor in the equation, but is it worth double the price of the 17-40? Only you can decide. Be aware, however, that if the DOF is *too* narrow, you can run into problems like only *parts* of the face being in focus; i.e., nose "sharp," eyes "blurry." (And who wants that?)

 

Canon doesn't make a 17-40 f/2.8 most probably because it would obviate the 16-35 f/2.8. The focal ranges of these two lenses is just too similar, even though the differences are "magnified" on a 1.6x digital.

Jon,

 

Thanks. I just got back from my vacation and am worn out from all the shooting, bending, etc. And I'm shooting a wedding this weekend -but for fun!

 

Roger,

 

I had the 16-35mm for the extra stop, but wide open it's too soft for me. The 17-40mm is Canon's best ultra wide zoom IMO. The extra stop will give you a *bit* more background blur, but not as much as you may think. Honestly I can't say I miss it that much. It's up to you. For me price wasn't an issue - quality was. And believe it or not the 17-40mm is better IMO, and others have said so as well.

 

On the other hand I could never live with a telephoto like the 70-200 at anything but f/2.8. While the 70-200 f/4 L is excellent, there I absolutely need the extra isolation which is more apparent.

 

Bogdan