Lense to compliment the 70-200 2.8L

[greg_koni]

I currently own a 10D with a 28-135 IS, 70-200 f2.8, 1.4X TC, and a

550 EX. I shoot mostly field sports but will hopefully be shooting

team/player portraits and other portraits as a side business/hobby.

I am looking for a replacement for my 28-135 and am considering the

24-70 f2.8 or the 17-40 f4 with a 50mm 1.4/1.8. Though it costs

more I am leaning toward the 24-70 f2.8. Combined with my 70-200, I

am covered from 24-200 before the 1.4 TC. I also believe the 24-70

would make a better portrait lense. Am I on the right track?

Anyone in a similar situation with input? I welcome all comments.

[digitmstr]

I have the 24-70L and yes, it is a great portrait lens. Mine is on the camera at all times, as a "normal" lens. With it and the 70-200L you'll be covered :)

[greg_moss2]

Same here. The 24-70 is my "Normal" lens. I have a 16-35 and only use it when I really need a wide angle.

[yakim_peled1]

Question is, will you be needing the 17-24mm (~27-38mm) range?

 

Happy shooting ,

Yakim.

[greg_koni]

Yakim,

I shoot mostly field sports but will hopefully be shooting team/player portraits and other portraits as a side business/hobby. After re reading my orignal post I guess I should have asked "Which would make a better portrait lense 17-40 f4 or 24-70 f2.8?" Eventually I would like to own all 3 lenses. I was looking for input on which lense would best compliment the 70-200 f2.8 for my immediate need as stated above. As always thanks, Greg

[bv photography]

Greg,

I decided I will go for 17-40 f/4, 28-70 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/4 with 1.4 xTC. I think this is as good as it gets for people who are not professional photographers and have limited budget, but want excellent, yet affordable lenses. Happy shooting.

[jbq]

Well, the question is "do you need to wide angles"?. If not, I'd go for the 24-70. If yes, I'd go for the 17-40 with the 50/1.4.

 

Personally, I chose the prime route with my 70-200/4, and have a 28/2.8 35/2 50/1.4 which I'm very happy with, and I'm looking forward to buying a 24/2.8 and 20/2.8 to complete the range.

[charlie_vigue]

Why not a wide prime plus the 24-70?

[john_nastelin1]

Bear in mind that the 70-200 is also an excellent portrait lens! Be careful using wide-angle for portraits because they can introduce unflattering distortions.

[d_weissman]

Save yourself some money and get a great lens. I photograph dogs at shows. I use a 10D and have found that my Tamron Di 17-35mm 2.8 to be the lens of choice. I am getting great results and prints. It cost me 479 bucks at B & H and worth every penny. I think it is better than the 17-40 Canon. I also have a 70-200 and the 24-85

[darrill]

I have the 24-70 and the 16-35 and on the 1D I used the 16-35 to compliment the 70-200. On the 1Ds I found the 16-35 too wide but as I usually am indoors for sports or in dim lighting (I live in Finland) I found the 24-70 too slow and heavy. So lately I have been using a 50f1.4 and an 85f1.8. They allow shooting in dimmer light and the choice of a higher shutter speed for faster action or lower ISO for less noise.