24-70 2.8L vs 70-200 2.8L usm

[ronald_anderson1]

I got a used copy of the 1ds camera. I was advised in this forum to keep my lenses prime!

 

canon offers 16-35 2.8, 24-70 2.8, 70-200 2.8 is usm.

I know this is a wide range of lenses. I like the idea of the is with the 70-200 but it is really

expensive. Alot of people have f4 lenses,does f2.8 vs f4 really make a big difference . I take a

wide range of pictures including bird pictures . I will spend the money if needed on the 2.8 is

I just need some information. this will be my first L lens .

Thanks

[john_macpherson]

Nice camera! But the 1Ds series cameras are unforgiving on the lenses you put in front of that FF sensor.

 

But none of the lenses you mention are primes.

 

24-70 2.8L is very very sharp - I have one. Great lens on the FF sensor.

 

70-200 f2.8L is a similar performer (I can recommend this personally too).

 

The extra stop from F4 to F2.8 is a doubling of light hitting your sensor - THAT means you can shoot in lower light at the wide aperture. What is more important is that f2.8 allows the AF to work much better and usually faster, in most situations.

 

For portraits the f2.8 gives beautiful out of focus backgrounds and differential focus effects.

 

The IS makes this lens a wonderful piece of kit in windy conditions, or in hand-held situations.

 

If you can afford it and are prepared to carry it as a lump attached to a 1Ds, get the f2.8 and be happy. If you can find a s/h one go for it.

 

In sharpness terms, by all accounts the f4 version is similar.

[John Crowe]

That's $4K in lenses. If you are not prepared for that you could go 17-40/4 L, 50/1.8, 70-200/4 L, for about $1300 to get you started. If birds are a big priority then the 300/4 L IS and 1.4x would be better suited.

[whwhitejr]

If you have the money spend it Ronald. The first three lenses that you mentioned (F2.8L)Are all great. You could get by with the 17-40 f4 instead of the 16-35L but the 24-70f2.8L and the 70-200f2.8L IS are best at lowlight. Primes are better at low light but you have to use your feet to zoom. Birds are another matter you might get by with the 1.4X & the 2X telextender with the 70-200. I find the 2X a little soft but the 1.4X is quite good. The "L" lenses hold thier value and if you can get them used they are a good buy I saw some of them on B&H this morning. Hope this helps,Bill

[lovcom_photo]

For most uses, I would have a strong bias toward the fastest zooms I could afford. If you can stay with only L zooms. You never know when F2.8 can come in handy.

[ken munn]

You say you want to shoot bird pictures.

 

That's not my interest, but I suspect that something at 200mm is way too short for decent

bird pix.

 

Looking at nature photographers work, 400, 500 and even 600mm is not unusual.

[nels]

f/2.8 makes a huge difference when you need it. I have both 24-70L and 70-200L IS, and I do use f/2.8 quite a bit, especially for birds. Click on my name and go to my website for some examples.

 

Remember that even with 1.4x TC attached to 70-200L IS, you still get an f/4 lens, which is important for shallow DOF.

 

http://www.pbase.com/nels_olvin/image/49732546

 

The IS also helps a great deal.

 

http://www.pbase.com/nels_olvin/image/49801131

[dave_holland]

Well, if you have the money then I would spend the cash and buy the best quality lens you can buy. That 2.8 70-200 is an outstanding portrait lens, and with a 1.4TC it is excellent for close sports as well. Of course for birds and long distance it is a little short, but your cash outlay goes up exponentially beyond about 300mm. The extra speed makes a huge difference if you ever try to shoot indoor sports like hockey or basketball, and it offers great definition from the background with a professional looking, background blur. These lenses should last you over 10 years. Mine have, and are going strong. Amortized over a decade the price isn't so high, especially if you might eventually sell inferior equipment to upgrade later.