acerl310 12:52pm, 17 September 2009
So basically a 24-70mm f/2.8L is the same as the following, in terms of price,:

1.)70-200mm IS USM f/4.0L
2.)70-200mm non-IS USM f/2.8L
3.)70-200mm IS USM f/2.8L(a second hand copy will cost about 1000 bucks to 1200 bucks)

I have the same problem as the guy who posted earlier but mine is about the 24-70mm against the 70-200mm family
wmliu PRO 9 years ago
other than the price and the L designation, i don't see any similarity. 24-70mm and 70-200mm are completely different lenses for completely different purposes.

what do you shoot?
Sandy Phimester 9 years ago
I got both. 70-200mm 2.8 IS and the 24-70. They are too different. They compliment each other absolutely stunningly, as you have that whole range covered down perfectly.

But again, far too different.
and HEAVY as all heck..which ppl seem to forget when they see the pictures but i think that's BS..its heavy you feel it and when you look at the pictures you neck still hurts!

good luck...it really matter what you shoot!
acerl310 9 years ago
Well, I wanted a lens that can shoot indoors easily and sports as easy too. I want it too cover full body length shots...


well, my other "masters" told me to go with the 24-70mm just because of the fact that I, a shutterbug, it has a lot more applications than the 70-200mm lenses.

@Siciliano LOL at your gangsta pic. Nice one
foTobias. 9 years ago
bought both i did, the 70-200 2,8 work indoors it does, and the 24-70 can do sports (its perfect for weightlifting - and you dont even need weights)
if you can get close enough to what you want to shoot the 24-70 is perfect, if you are a bit further away the 70-200 is the way to go...
Ummm buy both, they are completely different lenses?! If you want indoors and sports then buy a Tamron 28-300 or Sigma 18-250
scifitographer 9 years ago
apples and oranges. buy both and make a fruit salad.
fhsatterfield 9 years ago
I got the 24-70mm f/2.8L because I have a wonderful wife :-)
acerl310 9 years ago
We bought the 24-70mm f/2.8L USM...
Awesome lens XD
IS is just missing from it... but I bet it'll cost a fortune if it did have it
Martín Claro Posted 8 years ago. Edited by Martín Claro (member) 8 years ago
I have both. I use much more times the 24-70mm than the 70-200mm, but that's because I don't go to sports often.
Both are great lenses and compliment eache other.
Maybe you would like the Tamron 28-300mm lens, but it isn't just an All-Canon-L-lenses-in-one.
Ronnie Irawan 8 years ago
i dont have the 70-200.. yet.. plannin to buy the IS f/2.8.. if i have the money.. :p but for the 24-70 it is a very great lens, never let me down.. :)
acerl310 8 years ago
Thanks for the inputs guys! My next purchase is going to be a prime!

I'm still thinking about it though :)

85mm f/1.8 USM
100mm f/2 USM
100mm f/2.8 USM Macro
135mm f/2L USM

My Body: 40D(1.6x)

:)
Fat Channel 8 years ago
hey im still beginner, jus want to know, whats the different 18-200mm and 24-70 mm which is better, tamron? is it as good as the 24-70 mm?
acerl310 Posted 8 years ago. Edited by acerl310 (member) 8 years ago
If you're looking for quality and build, Canon/Nikon is the only way to go. Generic lenses are generally "worse" than the original lenses. However, I've heard that the 17-55mm f/2.8 (Sigma or Tamrom, I forget) is fantastic. I tried it out on my friend's D90 and it's quite a joy to use (just like a 24-70mm. However, note that I didn't post process or even upload those photos I took with the 17-55mm to a computer... so, I can't judge its overall IQ).

Note: Brands such as Sigma and Tamron are not terrible bad per se. They're there so experienced amateurs or amateurs can get "great" glass cheaper. It's more of the bang for the buck choice in my opinion.

Now, I assume you're on a Crop-Sensor/x00D/x0D/7D. The 24-70mm is a fantastic lens (check my site: www . acerl310 . deviantart . com and a user named steve.korn here in flickr). You can do anything with it. The only thing that it doesn't have is IS. Oh, and it's really heavy (even for me, teenager). I don't have nor tried the 18-200mm but if you want to get the long focal length and the IS, then it "maybe" the better choice. Remember, the 24-70mm is not really a good telephoto lens.

By the way, the most appropriate EF-S lens to be compared to the EF 24-70mm L is the EF-S 17-55 IS f/2.8 USM. On a crop sensor camera, it's going to give you the "field of view or focal length" as on a 24-70mm on a full frame body.

Identify your goals and budget. Remember, L lenses such as the 24-70mm are (quite honestly) reserved for working professionals who get profit from what they do. Hence, they don't waste money because they earn them again anyways.

Differentiate WANT from NEED. Do you WANT the 24-70mm because it has the fancy red line and it's an L class lens? Or do you NEED it because of the f/2.8 aperture and the fantastic bokeh? :)

I hope I helped you! Check the-digital-picture. It offers fantastic reviews on Canon lenses.
Fat Channel 8 years ago
yeah thanx alot mate
after reasearch i guess i gonna buy a 24-70mm then, tamron jus dont give me the feel... its like hundreds of dollars too... so why dont jus go for canon lens..

but i guess i gonna get 24-70mm 1.8 not 2.8.. goin for portrait..
but again..im in dilemma when i compare with 24mm f1.4.. portrait.. whic is better?
thanx
scattered summer [deleted] Posted 8 years ago. Edited by scattered summer (member) 8 years ago
Between 1.6'ish and 2.8, the 24mm f1.4 is perfect... after 2.8 it's a horse race between the 24mm and the 24-70mmL. I use them for two diff situs... low light (24mmL) and everything else(24-70mmL). After 2.8 nothing compares to the 24-70 in quality, versatlility and rich-ness of images. If you want a superb portrait lens... go for the 50mm f/1.4 (this lens is a real winner for images Q and cost) or if you have money to burn the f/1.2.

The question of 24-70mm vs 70-200 makes very little sence to me. If you were going to buy a carrot or an watermelon which would you get. Both are good but what are you makin to eat?

Tamron, Sigma, and basically everything else...they are great lenses but not Canon L quality. Buy what you won't regret. It cost money in the long run... rent them all for a couple of days...then buy the Canon L :o)
MisterQuill 8 years ago
As others have said, they are chalk and cheese. I bought both. Very different uses but they're the only two lenses you'll need to carry for certain jobs.
acerl310 8 years ago
@David KM and MisterQuill

My title is wrongly written. It's more like what should I buy first? the 24-70 or the 70-200. I hope I cleared that out for you guys :). Thanks for the suggestions by the way. I'm eyeing for a 70-200mm lens right now.

It's either the 70-200mm f/2.8L USM non-IS or the 70-200mm f/2.8 of Sigma (no-OS).

@Fat Channel

I kind of don't understand the lenses you're talking about but here it goes lol

24-70mm f/2.8L
24mm f/1.4
50mm f/1.8

For portraiture you need a lens that's quite long. Have you tried taking a close-up shot with your Digicam? Notice that your photos from that fairly wide-angle camera shows the imperfection in the faces of people. They distort your face and enlarge your nose, ears, eyes, mouth, forehead and others. They may not be noticeable but keep in mind that they are there. If you're going to be serious in portraiture, the 50mm f/1.8 is a good starting lens. The 24-70mm f/2.8L is good for portraiture too (and it's versatile. You can use it in various Photography genres).

If you are tight on budget and you want Canon lenses (not 3rd party lenses). I advice you to go to this route.

Normal Zoom Range: EF-S 17-55 IS f/2.8 USM (there is also an excellent 17-55mm from Tamron/Sigma. My friend has it and he told me yesterday that he fell in love with it lol! The Canon 17-55 has IS and a wide end (17mm). The 24-70mm feels a bit long for my crop sensor camera (40D). It's quite hard to get a full-body picture with it on my crop. There are times too when I wanted/needed IS. I just compensate that want with my flash (430EX II)).

Optional: EF 50mm f/1.8 II (Some say the Mark I version is better)

Telephoto Zoom Range:

-70-200mm f/4L USM non-IS (one of the cheapest L lens of Canon. It boasts superb image quality too!)

-EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM (this is quite expensive but I've read on this one that it has some IQ issues)

-EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM (I haven't read this one. I just see this lens in the internet and such)


Oh, a note in portraiture. The longer the lens, the more it'll minimize the face's so-called "imperfections." This is an issue revolving around compression. :) That's why I always shoot in 50mm and above when doing portraiture (Keep in mind that I have a crop sensor!).
Groups Beta