24-70 f/2.8L + 70-200 f/2.8L versus 70-200 f/2.8L IS II

[antonio_leandro_nascimento]

<p>I am planning to buy new lenses in the next three months. I shoot primarely landscapes in bright light and nude portraits, handheld 95% of the time. I currently own a T2i and I am planning to upgrade to the 5D III when it is released. One of the reasons I am planning to buy one of the 70-200 f/2.8 is for the ability to use it with the Canon 2x tele extender. So, what would you choose: two lenses without IS or the tele with IS?</p>

<p>[]'s<br>

Antonio Leandro</p>

 

[sheldonnalos]

<p>24-70 + 70-200, definitely. Focal length and versatility rule the day over pure image quality but being tied to just one lens.</p>

<p>Plus, you can sell the 70-200 f/2.8 when you do eventually decide to upgrade to the version II lens, which you will. After you get the 5D III, of course. :-)</p>

[peter_j2]

<p>Based on your objective and the presumption that you can afford the lenses and future camera, it would make sense to follow the resolution evolution path of a future EOS 5D Mark II replacement with the current EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM II to complement your desire for an EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM. Am I making any sense?</p>

[antonio_leandro_nascimento]

<p>Peter,</p>

<p>Unfortunately, I can not afford the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II + 24-70 f/2.8L. I can only afford the 24-70 f/2.8L + 70-200 f/2.8L or only the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II.</p>

<p>[]'s<br>

Antonio Leandro</p>

 

[peter_j2]

<p>Personally, I would buy the EF 70-200/2.8L IS USM II. It will make a great nude portrait lens.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>For nude portraits, i.e. use without the 2x extender, even on higher resolution cameras, the MkII 70-200 IS is just a small incremental improvement over the MkI. Technique will have a far greater effect on image quality than the difference between the two lenses.</p>

<p>With regards the 2x TC, I am not a fan of it on the 70-200 but there are a few people out there that get great results with it, <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=971685">here</a> is the most notable. But do be realistic of the capabilities of either version as a 140-400 f5.6.</p>

<p>The 24-70 is a fantastic lens, giving it up to get the MkII 70-200 IS seems a poor trade.</p>

<p>I would get the 70-200 IS MkI, then wait till I saved a bit extra to get the 24-70.</p>

[alan_bryant1]

<p>What are your current lenses?</p>

<p>If I had to choose between those two lens kits, using them as my only lenses with a T2i, I would definitely take the 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8. Much more versatile.</p>

[markonestudios]

<p>I too would like to know what lenses you currently shoot with. I recently acquired Tamron's 28-75 f/2.8 lens and have found it a very good performer on my 5D2. In fact, I've been taking more portraits with it than my 50 f/1.8 which was for a long time my go-to portrait lens.</p>

 

<p>Buying the Tamron would likely save you the $$$ to buy the 70-200 IS ver. 2.0 :)</p>

 

<p>Pros: Constant f/2.8, 5mm more reach at the long end, pretty sharp, has macro capability, allowing very close shooting, which can help to further narrow the DOF, far cheaper than Canon's 24-70.<br>

Cons: Not as wide as Canon's 24-70, which also happens to be one of the sharpest tools in Canon's lens shed<br>

 </p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>I find image stabilization to be indispensible for shooting telephoto lenses over 85mm handheld, and therefore wouldn't consider getting a 70-200 without IS.</p>

[marlon]

<p>If you're using the 70-200 for studio nude portraits, using flash, you don't need the 2.8 and can go with the f/4L which is also great for outdoor applications.</p>

[kerry_grim]

<p>Consider the non-IS version of the 70-200 only if you WILL use a tripod. Have you considered the f4 IS version of that lens, similar in cost to the the 70-200 2.8 non-IS version?</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>I'd recommend both the 24-70/2.8 & 70-200/2.8 combo. Unless you have a superior 'normal' focal length lens already, 70-200 is going to be<em> very</em> long on your cropped t2i for nude portraits by itself. Even though the 24-70 starts at ~38.5mm on the crop, the eff. 112mm (from the 70-200) is going to be next to useless (unless the models are part of your landscape) for anything but the tightest portraiture.</p>

<p>Also, I wouldn't try the f4 for the nudes, controlling your DOF precisely is an important aspect of the nudes, and giving away f2.8-f4 probably isn't the best choice of limitation. Also, you might find that a limit of f4 makes your bokeh more fragmented and distracting. I know I found that to be the case (even in 'regular' portraiture). To be honest, a better choice may be a selection of good primes, but if you're stuck on the zooms, go w/ as large a constant aperture as possible. </p>

<p>My opinion is that to limit yourself to the 70-200 range<em> at all </em>is rather foolish if you have the option to use the <em>vastly</em> more flexible combo of the 24-70/2.8 & 70-200/2.8 non-IS. If you were shooting FF, it wouldn't be ...as... foolish, but with the crop, there's no question. </p>

[dcstep]

<p>Also consider the 70-200mm f/4 IS. It works very well with the 1.4xTC and has pleasing bokeh wide open. It's a great "portrait" lens at it shorter end and becomes a great wildlife lens for larger animals in the wild. I use mine on my 5D2, both with and without the 1.4x TC and find the image quality to be excellent.<br>

I use it some for landscape shooting, but tend to prefer wider focal lengths for that, so I go to my 24-105mm f/4L IS.</p>

<p>You don't say what you'll be shooting with a 70-200mm plus a 2xTC. If it's birds, then I agree, otherwise, I don't understand the need for f/2.8. The IS will allow you to make up for the 1-stop difference for hand holding. I seldom shoot my f/4 lenses at f/4, so I think that f/2.8 might be wasted, unless you have special needs, such as really "needing" 400mm of focal length, which I fully understand.</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>I shoot primarely <strong><em>landscapes</em></strong> in bright light and <strong><em>nude portraits</em></strong>, <strong><em>handheld </em></strong>95% of the time. I <strong><em>currently own a T2i</em></strong> and I am planning to upgrade to the 5D III when it is released. One of the reasons I am planning to buy one of the <strong><em>70-200 f/2.8 is for the ability to use it with the Canon 2x tele extender.</em></strong><br /><strong><em>So, what would you choose: two lenses without IS or the tele with IS?</em></strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong><em></em></strong><br />I can’t answer that question without more information . . .</p>

<ol>

<li>Will you keep the T2i?</li>

<li>What lenses do you already have?</li>

<li>What will you shoot with the 70 to 200 + x2.0? </li>

<li>And under what lighting conditions?</li>

<li>How good, are your Hand Holding and Shutter Release technique? </li>

</ol>

<p>WW</p>

<p>Hello and thanks for the compliment, Scott.</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>"You don't say what you'll be shooting with a 70-200mm plus a 2xTC. If it's birds, then I agree, otherwise, <strong><em>I don't understand the need for f/2.8. The IS will allow you to make up for the 1-stop difference for hand holding."</em></strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'd guess he wants an F/2.8 lens to maintain Centre Point AF with the tele-extender, if this assumption is correct, having IS (or not) doesn't really assist the lack of AF.<br />The OP might please confirm my assumption.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[antonio_leandro_nascimento]

<p>@ Alan Bryant</p>

<p>I currently own: EF-S 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 / EF 17-40 f/4L / EF 70-200 f/4L / EF 28mm f/1.8 USM / EF 50mm f/1.4 USM / EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro</p>

<p>@ Mark Anthony Kathurima</p>

<p>I am afraid a 28-70mm lens would not be as wide as I sometimes need in a APS-C body (my current T2i). I also prefer to use only Canon lenses because of compatibility issues. Some of my lenses are 10 years old and still work. I could not guarantee this for a third party lens.</p>

<p>@ Pierre Pierlot</p>

<p>That is my main concern. I am afraid a 70-200 f/2.8L without is may not be handholdable for a long time given its weight, specially with a 2x TC.</p>

<p>@ Mark Kuhnreich</p>

<p>Most of my nudes are shot on location, with available light, not with flash.</p>

<p>I currently own the 70-200 f/4L, but I would like to be able to isolate the subject from the background more properly.</p>

<p>@ Kerry Grim</p>

<p>I shoot handheld most of the time. I would prefer a f/2.8 lens over the f/4 because of better bokeh.</p>

<p>@ Marcus Ian</p>

<p>The 70-200 is really long on my crop body, I use it only for head/shoulders portraits or details.</p>

<p>Isolation and bokeh are some of the most important characteristics I am looking for my new lens set. And probably f/2.8 is paramount for this.</p>

<p>The new lens or lenses are going to be added to my lens set, not to replace it. I could use the 17-40mm and 50mm f/1.4 (and these lenses are the ones I use most frequently for portraits), but I am getting annoyed because I need to change them very often (when I need to choose between isolation and a more confortable framing), so I started to think that the 24-70 could be a nice addition to the set.</p>

<p>@ David Stephens</p>

<p>I surely "need" a 400mm lens ;-). It will be used for birds, architecture and landscape details I can not get close to.</p>

<p>@ William W</p>

<p>1. Yes. It will be a backup body / lightweight kit main camera.<br>

2. EF-S 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 + EF 17-40 f/4L + EF 70-200 f/4L + EF 28mm f/1.8 USM + EF 50mm f/1.4 USM + EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro<br>

3. It will be used for birds, architecture and landscape details I can not get close to.<br>

4. Most of them, sunlight. Sometimes interiors (nudes) with available light.<br>

5. I can handhold at a sunny f/16 rule or maybe one stop lower. It works great for small focal distances, but not very well for longer lenses.</p>

<p>Your assumption is correct. I would like to keep the center autofocus point with the 2x TC.</p>

<p>[]'s<br>

Antonio Leandro</p>

 

[William Michael]

<p>Thanks for the added information.</p>

<p>Just a few thoughts - based on some assumptions:</p>

<p>. That for most purposes the quality out of the T2i is satisfactory to you.<br>

. With the 5DMkIII the 10 to 22 on the T2i is superfluous.<br>

. Assume you will (might) sell the 70 to 200/4 when buying a faster 70 to 200?<br>

. You are happy with the 17 to 40 apropos lens speed (F/4)</p>

<p>In mostly all cases the value of IS outweighs the 70 to 200/2.8L + x2.0MkII combination.<br>

I suggest you opt for IS on the 70 to 200F/2.8 lens.(** see below).</p>

<p>For the time being (while you only have the T2i) you have a 17 to 40 as a standard zoom - yes it is not F/2.8, but it is a good lens.<br>

When you buy a 5DMkIII, you can then think about buying the 24 to 70 – that is time to save.</p>

<p>BUT when you buy the 5DMkIII, you will also (IMO) not require the 10 to 22, so that can be sold also.<br>

Now, if you want faster standard zoom coverage (and the T2i is suitable to you) then sell the 17 to 40 and buy a 16 to 35MkII.<br>

OTOH, if the 17 to 40 F/4 is fast enough - you are still OK.<br>

If the T2i is not suitable then I would consider selling it a buying a 7D, or similar.</p>

<p>This whole kit building thing is about thinking about <strong><em>the final kit</em></strong> and working backwards in steps to get to that point.<br>

The moment you wrote that you would keep the T2i, then that leverages your entire kit, as it is dual format and as such can change the dynamic of the lenses you buy (need).</p>

<p>As much as I like the 24 to 70/2.8L - I don't own one. <br>

I have always had a dual format digital kit (APS-C and 135 format) and I am comfortable with the APS-C camera driving the 16 to 35 (or the 17 to 40) as the "standard zoom camera".<br>

There is no need (apropos FoV coverage) for me to have the 24 to 70, with a 16 to 35 on an APS-C, provided I have the 135 format camera and the 70 to 200, over my shoulder.</p>

<p>WW </p>

<p>Post Script:<br>

(**) I purposely bought the 70 to 200F/2.8L USM for a few reasons.<br>

Firstly it is used 95% of the time for photography where the Slowest Tv is 1/320s – as I require that Shutter to arrest Subject Movement.<br>

Secondly, I have access to borrow a 70 to 200F/2.8L IS USM (though I only have a couple of times)<br>

Thirdly, I do use the x1.4 and the x2.0 with the zoom - but not as a staple day to day fare – and usually at Tv greater than 1/800s – the Landscape shot in the link below was pulled at 1/500s and is one of the best I have done Hand Held with that combo at FL = 400mm – so what I am saying is I don’t rely on the fact I have pull that shot and think I can do it all day long – now that is different if you are shooting with strobes in a studio . . . the Tv is a little less critical.<br>

Also, I have access to a 400/2.8 – AND most of the 70 to 200 + x2.0 shots don’t make it past a 5x7 print – though this one is great 20” wide: <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/10291553&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/10291553&size=lg</a></p>

<p>However <strong><em>I advise you think long and hard about how often you might want to use IS</em></strong>.</p>

<p>For example as one of the uses you mention is to shoot distant landscapes and birds. <br>

Without a solid tripod and you might want IS on that 70 to 200 with the x2.0 attached.<br>

This took me three attempts and then it was major luck, thrown in with skill and discipline: <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/10291370&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/10291370&size=lg</a></p>

<p>Also, I think there is a lot of merit in Scott’s comment:<br>

<em>“even on higher resolution cameras, the MkII 70-200 IS is just a small incremental improvement over the MkI. Technique will have a far greater effect on image quality than the difference between the two lenses. . . I would get the 70-200 IS MkI . . .(then wait till I saved a bit extra to get the 24-70).”</em><br>

<br>

WW</p>

[antonio_leandro_nascimento]

<p>@ William W</p>

<p>Thank you for your prompt answer and congratulations on your pictures, they are great!</p>

<p>The quality of T2i is really satisfactory for me. The most important reason why I am considering to buy a 5D III is to make my lenses behave as they were intended to. Of course I can shoot as wide as the 16-35mm in a 5D III with the 10-22mm in the T2i, but I would appreaciate to have the full frame of a shot made with my 50mm, not just the center part of it.</p>

<p>I really don't know what I am doing with the 70-200 f/4L when I get the faster one. I might sell it, to recover some of the investiment. But I might also keep it, because when I am not on studio, I am usually on full day walks in different towns or trekking, so I would appreaciate the difference in weight from a 70-200 f/4L to a 70-200 f/2.8L.</p>

<p>I am happy with the speed of the 17-40 f/4L. I would like more bokeh, but it seems that the wider the angle, the harder it is to form bokeh, so I can accept the f/4 apperture.</p>

<p>When I get the 5D III, I will probably keep the T2i and the 10-22mm. There are situations (climbing, for example) when I would like to carry my backup equipment and leave my main camera safe at home.</p>

<p>The 16-35mm f/2.8 is a lens I would like to have, but since I am probably not achieving a much better bokeh with this lens than with the 17-40 and since I would use this lens stopped down for landscapes, the 16-35mm can wait longer.</p>

<p>I don't have access to other lenses. It is really hard (if not impossible) to rent Canon gear in Brazil. And getting new equipment can be very expensive (used lenses usually sell here for more than their price new at B&H). I could use a new 70-200 f/2.8L IS (the first version), but I can not find it new anyware.</p>

<p>I am thinking really hard about this question. And I will think about it about three months, from now to the day I buy the new lens.</p>

[markonestudios]

<p>Antontio,</p>

<p>Thanks for sharing your current lens cache. Based on that, I won't change my recommendation to consider the Tamron 28-75 and the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. Of course if you could swing the Canon + 70-200/2.8 IS budget-wise, then that would be ideal. You already have the super-wide 17-40L (and the 10-22 on your crop) for when you need very wide. The 24-70 will not be wide on your T2i either.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>Hmm ... more information:<br>

Yep I understand climbing and stuff . . . I use the EF18 to 55 Kit lens for sailing. (Have you thought of that lens as the "go everywhere el cheapo"?) </p>

<p>Considering that you are in Brazil (regarding difficulty of supply of lenses) and it seems you tend to keep your gear for a long time. . .<br>

I think that is all the more reason to buy once and buy EXACTLY what you want for a long time and many uses when you consider the 70 to 200 lens.</p>

<p>WW </p>

 

[antonio_leandro_nascimento]

<p>@ Mark Anthony<br>

<br />I would like to buy the 70-200 f/2.8L IS (the first version), but I can not find it here at a reasonable price.</p>

<p>@ William W</p>

<p>My current trekking/climbing kit consists of EOS Rebel XTi + EF-S 18-55mm + EF 50mm f/1.8 + EF 75-300 f/4-5.6 USM III. I choose one or three lenses depending on how difficult will the trek/climb be. The kit is lighter and smaller than my "official" kit, making it ideal (but not in terms of image quality) for these situations. And if it falls, I don't lose the best equipment.</p>

<p>Buying exactely what I want is a good advice. Thank you. That's why I am tending to choose the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II. I am also considering to buy one lens now and another next year, just can't choose which to buy now. I know the tele is newer, but I don't know which one would be more used. There is also the rumour that there will be a new version of the 24-70 f/2.8L with IS, but if I would wait to buy gear based on rumours of better equipment only, I would probably be shooting film until now.</p>

<p> </p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>With an understanding of your complete kit, there is another option that doesn't seem to have explored. While you certainly seem to have the WA side covered adequately (if a little on the slow side), maybe some long primes might be worth considering. w/ your budget, You are almost able to do a 135/2 and an 85/1.2, while those lenses' capabilities certainly aren't required for landscapes, doing portraiture on location, with limited supplemental light is going to be a pleasure... even handheld.<br>

And once you get your shiny new 5dmk3 (when's that coming out anyway? :-) ) both will deliver un-paralleled imagery for you.</p>

[antonio_leandro_nascimento]

<p>Marcus, </p>

<p>I am thinking about buying the 85mm f/1.8. It is really cheaper than the other options and I think it would provide a nice bokeh on the tele side. As I don't know if I will be able to buy the 24-70mm f/2.8L and 70-200 f/2.8L IS II at once, I am considering the 24-70 and the 85mm f/1.8.</p>

<p>I am also asking myself and the rumors websites when are we going to see the 5D mark III. I hope it is not when I give up waiting and buy a mark II ;-).</p>

[david_huff1]

<p>The 24-70 is just an outstanding lens, as is the 70-200 f/2.8 IS (Version I). I had the Version I and traded it in to upgrade for the 70-200 f/2.8 II. There is a difference, but you will not take advantage of it for what you are describing as your intended use. You don't need faster autofocus performance, for example. If you cannot afford the 24-70 and the 70-200 f/2.9 IS (Version I), then I would definitely go for what was suggested above, the 24-70 and the 70-200 f/4 IS - perhaps Canon's most underrated lens. The f/4 is very light and great for studio style work as well as, for its best use, travel. In sum, I would without a doubt choose the 24-70 and the other version of the 70-200, whichever one is within your budget, over only purchasing the 70-200L f/2.8 II. Good luck.</p>

[joshua_lee]

<p>I would also recommend the newer 70-200 f2.8 IS II only because whenever the mark III comes out and even with your t2i the camera is a huge megapixel camera. Such a high resolution requires a really sharp lens. The newer 70-200 is a higher res lens. Also the 24-70 is due for an update maybe being released with the mark III so i would hold off on that.</p>