(EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM VS. EF 24-105mm f/4L USM) VS the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM mk II

<p>Well, just for a thought, I should post this question up.<br /> <br /> Out of all the professional photographers, what would you recommend for basically Portrait/Outdoor sports/Indoor Sports/Landscape photography.<br /> <br /> Well, I also do want to save up my money for these lenses, so i came up with this equation for the lenses as shown above. And yes, hopefully you do know that new 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM II beast lens. Well, just for the fact, if you do choose either of the minor lenses (in the brackets), that means you choose either one of those lenses (or recommend) and the 70-200mm. I'm not a professional, and the reason I'm asking is because I'm planning to save up my money for a lens, and most would say the 70-200 for sure, and I would too, but just another one for backup, not that i would buy, but I would buy if I do get the chance, before the 70-200.<br /> <br /> So I'm interested in Portrait for sure! Sports both in and out, and landscape...<br /> <br /> <br /> Let the games begin!</p>

There is a great temptation to think that the best lenses most be the biggest, baddest, and most expensive looking lenses.

The lenses in your list are all fine lenses, and photographer's who are serious about their work might choose to get some

them... or very different lenses.

 

I like to say that if you are asking people which lenses will be best for your very general needs, it is probably not time to

be buying lenses. When you have photographed enough that you have a very good idea of what lens features are most

critical to you in your photography you'll be ready to line these lenses (and others) up against you needs and make a

choice.

 

I'll also note that you dud not mention what camera you shoot or what you do with the photographs. These things can make a significant difference.

 

Dan

<p>I'm confused - could you rephrase the question?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Out of all the professional photographers, what would you recommend for basically Portrait/Outdoor sports/Indoor Sports/Landscape photography."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>7D + 5DMkII + 16 to 35/2.8LMkII + 70 to 200/2.8LMkII IS + 24/1.4L + 50/1.4 + 135/2L + X1.4MkIII + 2.0MkIII + 580EX MkII x 2.</p>

<p>i.e. with that kit, the 24-70 and or 24-105 are superfluous</p>

<p>WW<br /><br /></p>

<p>The only thing that i can say for sure is that the lens you mentioned above will not be very useful for portraits , at least not for studio type photos, you will need a wide angle lens as well as zoom and how much money you spend wll be the the factor in whether you buy one fantastic lens or a few great ones.</p>

<p>I don't know... I tend to disagree with Jim H. I think any one of those lenses will be very handy in the studio. I've used the 28-70 and 70-200 quite a bit in my studio, and both zoom ranges were very useful.<br>

Bryan, I think you should get great results using any one of the three lenses for all of the areas of photography you mention, and I also think you know that any/all lens(es) have their strengths and limitations. If I were you, I'd buy the fastest lenses I can afford and cover all focal lengths, starting with the one I think I will use the most.</p>

<p>Jim, I'd say 24mm is very much a wide angle. Unless Bryan is shooting with an aps-c camera... but still the ranges are useful.<br>

Bryan, if you're shooting with aps-c then I'd skip both shorter lenses. I don't see the point of not having a wide angle in a zoom lens that is bought for a general use. 17-55/2.8 IS is much more handy and the quality's great.</p>

<p>Bryan, it might help if you were to disclose what camera you intend to use with these lenses.</p>

<p> For landscapes 17-40 f4L, for all the rest 70-200 f2.8 L IS.</p>

<p>I would venture and say that with a range from 24mm to 200mm, with whatever combination of lenses, one with very well served for the intended purposes.</p>

<p>I ain't no pro. I don't even understand the question.<br>

Glass is more important than camera body, but I do agree with Dan that you need to know if the camera is full frame or cropped.<br>

Are we choosing the 70-200 vs a 24-xx? If so. .that is like choosing between eggs for breakfast and a sandwich for lunch. Are you choosing between the two 24-xxx? All I can say is that if you can't pick between "fast aperture" and "IS"; then maybe you are not ready to buy a $1100 lens.<br>

For my money: I would never choose the 70-200/2.8-II/IS because (1) Lens is too big and (2) waaaay too expensive for what you get. But that is ME; who lugs lenses through airports.<br>

My "practical" kit? 10-22; 24-105/4L; 70-200/4L-IS; 50/1.4; 85/1.8. Runners up for adders: 24/1.4 and the 100-400/4L.<br>

With unlimited funds, I would ditch the APS-C and 10-22 for a full frame and 8-14/L as soon as it comes out.</p>

 

<p>I ain't no pro. I don't even understand the question.<br>

Glass is more important than camera body, but I do agree with Dan that you need to know if the camera is full frame or cropped.<br>

Are we choosing the 70-200 vs a 24-xx? If so. .that is like choosing between eggs for breakfast and a sandwich for lunch. Are you choosing between the two 24-xxx? All I can say is that if you can't pick between "fast aperture" and "IS"; then maybe you are not ready to buy a $1100 lens.<br>

For my money: I would never choose the 70-200/2.8-II/IS because (1) Lens is too big and (2) waaaay too expensive for what you get. But that is ME; who lugs lenses through airports.<br>

My "practical" kit? 10-22; 24-105/4L; 70-200/4L-IS; 50/1.4; 85/1.8. Runners up for adders: 24/1.4 and the 100-400/4L.<br>

With unlimited funds, I would ditch the APS-C and 10-22 for a full frame and 8-14/L as soon as it comes out.</p>

 

<p>The short answer is you need both; one of the 24-XX and the 70-200mm. There is no "do it all" lens that doesn't make sacrafices. If money is an issue, which it usually is, then the new 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II is probably overkill. Yes its an awesome lens, but the new arrival didn't instantly make the old version obsolete. The first version was and still is a staple lens for many photographers and is still an amazing piece of glass. So I would go with the original f/2.8 IS. As for the others, that choice is yours. Do you need IS or f/2.8? I would choose the faster lens if action and portraits were my main areas. Sure the IS is useful for portraits, but the f/4 won't create the bokeh of the f/2.8, but for that matter, I believe any portrait photographer should always have a couple primes handy. The 35mm, 50mm, and 85mm are all staples, any version of any of them. And if you shoot full frame, the 100mm and 135mm are considerations.</p>

<p>Bear this in mind too. Wander around taking shots with your 70-200 2.8 will attract a lot of stares. In addition to that, its heavy. As yourself the question, is it ok for me to attract this attention?<br>

You might be better served with some smaller lenses at critical focal points. I'd be buying something like a 28-200 3.5 first, and then use it for a while before deciding at what focal length you need to cover the most often. Pros cover up to 200 usually with two lenses, the 24-70 and 70-200. Some add a 50 1.8. But these two zooms are huge and intimidating, so give some thought to my idea. For landscapes, you might need to go down to a 20.<br>

The same question was my challenge and I ended up with three sub f2 primes: 28, 50, 100. I then bought an old 80-200 in case I needed to go longer, but so far I haven't used it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"that is like choosing between eggs for breakfast and a sandwich for lunch."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>:)</p>

<p>Yeah, how you shoot is really the big question. I'm a Nikon shooter, but most of their lenses are similar enough that I shouldn't sound like too much of an idiot.</p>

<p>For portraits, I like a combination of 24-105 f/4 IS and the 50/85/100 primes, depending on how far away you like to stand and whether or not you're using it for sports too. I find the 24-105 (mostly Nikon remember) to be every bit as good as the 24-70 when I'm at f/8-f/16 where I often shoot, plus it has more range, IS, and is cheaper. If I really want wide aperture the 2.8 on the 24-70 is almost irrelevant, because I'm usually going to reach for a prime lens anyway. Shoot, even the 15-85 is gorgeous at those f-stops, and it's cheaper still! To take it even further, if I'm shooting a group of people, my aperture will need to be small enough that a 2.8 lens is wasted. If you were shooting a family portrait, Nikon's 24-70 f/2.8 is the same cost as their 24-85 VR AND a decent set of lights, and not even you could tell the difference in 24 our of 25 shots. I'm not sure what the Canon analog is there, but you get the point.</p>

<p>The opposite is true for me for long lenses. I'm much more likely to be using a wide aperture in the 100-200mm range, so I'd be much more likely to pony up for a 2.8. But if you weren't shooting sports, or you were shooting daytime sports outside, the 70-200 f/4 will give you similar results, with the benefit of costing and weighing a lot less. The same goes for IS: if you only shoot moving subjects, IS is nice to have, but isn't worth very much. If you only shoot stationary subjects, every lens you own should be IS.</p>

<p>Bryan,</p>

<p>I withdraw my previous comment as the "answer" to your question. - having now read your Bio Page, my first post I consider not appropriate for a couple of reasons, not the least of which is that it doesn’t give you a lot of information and I also made an assumption that you were more experienced with using the lenses in question.</p>

<p>Also a two camera kit is likely not in your command at the moment - there is still merit in the comment and the kit is a very powerful kit and I encourage you to analyse it: as it might be something you want to work towards</p>

<p>I think you need to confirm that you are still using a 40D and that you still have the 18 to55 kit lens. Also did you buy the 85 or the 135? In other words let us know all the gear you have at the moment.</p>

<p>With respect to the 24 to XX vs the 70 to 200 question – I think I now better understand what you are asking and why you are asking it.</p>

<p>IMO, if you still have the kit lens (18 to 55) you’d be better saving up for the 70 to 200/2.8L as this will give you a better “whole kit” to cover sports (inside and outside) and portraits and landscapes – as you can use the Kit Lens for Landscape work e.g. <a href="../photo/9193653&size=md">http://www.photo.net/photo/9193653&size=md</a><br />And you can use the kit lens for portraiture, too: <a href="../photo/10412321&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/10412321&size=lg</a></p>

<p>And used at 55mm the kit lens is a nice “Standard Portrait Lens” on a 40D - and if you want really shallow DoF the F/2.8 of the 70 to 200 is wonderful and there is not much difference between 50mm and 70mm.</p>

<p>So what I am getting to is that I think you should look at the system you are building and not just is this lens better than that lens.</p>

<p>But rather ask: "What lens is better for <strong><em>my system?" . . . </em></strong> when I take into account what other lenses I have to use, at the moment.</p>

<p>Others might find benefit reading Bryan’s Bio Page: <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5962561">http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=5962561</a></p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>I have not read all the responses yet and it is getting late. My suggestion for anyone "saving" for lenses is NOT to buy the 70-200/2.8 IS II. It is a ridiculous amount of money. There are lots of good non-IS units at about 1/3 the price and if you must have IS then a used version I is less than 1/2 the price! You can get two or three superb lenses for the price of the IS II.</p>

<p>Serious indoor sports will take something other than any of the lenses above.</p>

<p>John,<br>

I think you don't have up-to-date pricing. The 70-200 2.8 IS II is $2069. The version I is $1899, only $170 less than version II. You shouldn't compare a new version II to a used version I, don't you agree? Tell me a new Canon lens for indoor sport that is superior to the verison II and is 1/2 or 1/3 of the price?, ie, $1034.50 or $689.67.<br>

I sold two prime lens 300 f/4 IS and 35 f/1.4 to buy this lens, and I'm happy about its quality especially its bokeh that I can't have using my 70-200 f/4 IS. The quality of the new verison II is excellent even with the 1.4x II.</p>

<p>For clarity, Bryan, I was quiet specific with this sentence:</p>

<p><em>"IMO, if you still have the kit lens (18 to 55) you’d be better saving up for the <strong>70 to 200/2.8L</strong> as this will give you a better “whole kit” to cover sports (inside and outside) and portraits and landscapes"</em></p>

<p>i.e. I was referencing the <strong>EF 70 to 200 F/2.8 L USM</strong> for those uses.<br>

The logic being that for sports, the Tv (shutter speed) would be adequate to arrest camera shake and secondly the value of the lens will hold, should you wish to later buy an IS version.<br>

I was prompted to add this clarification after reading John's post as it seems he thinks similarly. . . . Also adding to John's point - the 35/2 and 35/1.4; 50/1.8 and 50/1.4; 85/1.8 and 135/2 are all lenses which are used often, for INDOOR sports.</p>

<p>WW</p>

 

<p>I am not up to date on the body technology due to a lack of funds. However, I am still shooting with my Canon 300D from about seven years ago. I ditched the kits lens and instead bought a 24-70 F2.8L on Ebay and it has served as my primary lens for almost everything. A couple years ago I added a 50mm F1.4 but have not shot with it much. Great lens though.</p>

<p>The funny part about this was later when I bought a 10D with IR conversion. Both lenses were listed with lens flare issues for IR use. That is the only annoying thing I have had to deal with.</p>

<p>CHEERS...Mathew</p>

William wrote:

 

"Others might find benefit reading Bryan’s Bio Page: http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=5962561 "

 

Precisely. And perhaps this might be a useful lesson about considering what is best and most appropriate for the POSTER rather than just what we use for our own photography and/or what is on our personal wish lists.

 

This might also make the reasoning behind my earlier post a bit more apparent.

 

In general a great setup for someone in his situation is one of the entry-level cropped sensor bodies with the image-stabilized version of the kit lens. The very expensive optics are not needed at this point.

 

Dan

<p>You are building a lens kit, which took me about seven years to do. 16-35mm 2.8L, 50mm 1.4, 28-70mm 2.8L, 105mm 2.0L, 28-105 4.0L (for traveling) and 70-200mm 2.8L MKI are the lens I own. The 28-70mm 2.8L was the first lens I bought 10 years ago.</p>

<p>Start out with a lens you feel you will be using first and then grow into the rest over the years. You will find it is stops being this lens vs this lens and more of I pefer using this lens when I shooting this and this is my prefer lens when I shooting this.<br>

Bill</p>