70 - 200 f2.8 or 24 - 70f2.8

desperatedan1992

desperatedan1992

Suspended / Banned
Messages
677
Name
Daniel
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi TP

eventually in the next 6 months i will have both lens's but im looking to make a purchase for the first lens mid october.

I am a back up shooter at a wedding in november and am wondering which is the better one to get first. Originally i was going to get the 24 - 70 because its a great portrait and wedding lens so im told. But then looking at the 70 - 200 it too is also a good lens for this. I have 17 - 40 why not miss the 30mm and struggle the 6 months.

Any advice on which one is better first please tell me.

Also any pics on both lens's would be smashing :thumbs:

Cheers
 
As a 2nd shooter, the 70-200 will give you better options for candid/reportage style. Plus, 2.8 at the long end, the bokeh is alot nicer than the 24-70 at the long end.
Dean:)
 
Thanks for the advice Dino F

I love both so much i wish i won the lottery
 
Heres a few with the 70-200
36.jpg


40.jpg


35.jpg

Dean:)
 
I'm fortunate enough to have just gone over to the 70-200 2.8. I can definitely see it becoming my most used lens.
 
Hmmm would you say i wouldnt need a 24 - 70 unless i was a main shooter really??
 
Id still get one in case you are the main tog or in an area where you cant get a bit of distance between you and the subject.
My ideal line up
10-22
24-70/2.8
70-200/2.8

The 70-200 hardly ever comes off the camera though:lol:
Dean
 
Maybe that is the way forward then. I was tempted to get a 16 - 35 but im only dropping 5mm one end and 1mm on the other. Only advantage is it being 2.8. I dont think i would use less that 24mm so 24 - 70 on a 5d might be the best option being full frame an all.
 
I reakon i will kick in the 17 - 40 when i go full frame and survive with a 24 - 70. its only 7mm difference at the lowest end so im sure in full frame it will be find for wide angle. If not i will move back LMAO
 
desperatedan1992 said:
I reakon i will kick in the 17 - 40 when i go full frame and survive with a 24 - 70. its only 7mm difference at the lowest end so im sure in full frame it will be find for wide angle. If not i will move back LMAO
Click to expand...

24mm is very wide on FF (a bit like 15-16mm on crop). 17mm is much wider still, 7mm might not sound much, but the relationship is not linear (17 vs 24mm is not same as 200 vs 208mm). Look up angle of view for better comparison.

It depends if you would want to do architecture (both interior and exterior) and landscapes / seascapes. However 24mm would cover 80% of the things, and that lens is much sharper overall, even in the corners. If you can get both.
 
the 70-200 f2.8 is a stunning lens for the candid shots. Even for posed shots its a real belter. I recently covered a christening and was blown away by the results. I picked mine up on TP 2nd hand and its my favourite toy.
 
What does the primary want from you?

I'm going to go against the grain - I don't like using a 70-200 for candids at a wedding. I find guests think they're being spied on and it's easy to lose trust. I use mine for some B&G shots when we're alone and that's it. Otherwise it's always a 50mm or 24-70. I get in close amongst the guests and work hard in there. I'm really not a fan of long distance head shots that don't show context.

Is the 70-200 a fantastic lens - absolutely. But the most important thing is what the primary is expecting from you.

Wedding samples - 5 of them are 70-200 - http://www.guycollierphotography.com/?p=1304

pws samples - all are 70-200 http://www.guycollierphotography.com/?p=1346
 
I think it depends on your shooting style. I like the 70-200 and tend to use that first, but then I am not good at getting up close and personal with subjects. Both are excellent lenses, so any difference in quality between them won't be the issue for you. Given you have the wide angle, why not get the 70-200 and a cheap/fast 50/1.8 so you have a pretty full coverage?
 
desperatedan1992 said:
I reakon i will kick in the 17 - 40 when i go full frame and survive with a 24 - 70. its only 7mm difference at the lowest end so im sure in full frame it will be find for wide angle. If not i will move back LMAO
Click to expand...

Not a chance! lol

I have two full frame cameras and I would not be without the 17-40mm. I checked before I bought it and virtually all my shots at 24mm were above f4 because I wanted the depth of field. After all, if I'm shooting wide I'm doing it because I want context! So I chose the 17-40 over the 16-35 because it does exactly the job I want and at that focal length I don't actually NEED f2.8 because of the type of shots I use it for.

In your shoes, on FF go 70-200mm all day long as a second shooter. You should not be getting under the feet of your primary but looking to shoot something different and it's a cracking lens for doing just that. If your primary is doing what Radiohead suggested, then personally I'd be looking to do something other than getting is close. :)
 
I have a 17-40 and just got a 70-200 f2.8 IS to go with it. I don't shoot weddings though.
I would say if you can possibly afford it go for the IS on the 70-200 for those indoor shots. ;)

On a crop frame I think the 17-40 and 70-200 work well as a pair of lenses.
 
i have both the 24-70 and the 70-200. I would also give another nod to the 70-200. Its SIMPLY SUPERB on FF and it is very nice on a cropped body too. I use the 24-70 for group shots, but I use the 70-200 when I am roaming the venue and picking up candids of the b&g and guests. I also use the 70-200 to get nice closeups of the B&G.

I think the 24 end is too wide sometimes. Get it as your 2nd lens, because you'll love the 70-200.
 
1st two lenses i bought, absolute crackers - you won't be dissapointed :)

drew
 
hsuffyan said:
i have both the 24-70 and the 70-200. I would also give another nod to the 70-200. Its SIMPLY SUPERB on FF and it is very nice on a cropped body too. I use the 24-70 for group shots, but I use the 70-200 when I am roaming the venue and picking up candids of the b&g and guests. I also use the 70-200 to get nice closeups of the B&G.

I think the 24 end is too wide sometimes. Get it as your 2nd lens, because you'll love the 70-200.
Click to expand...

I'm going to go against the flow here, and say go for the 24-70 first. The 70-200 is a great portrait lens, but all of the best (IMHO) stuff I've seen at weddings for the last couple of years has been shot below 70 mm. Just to give you an example (excluding where I've been stuck a long way from the B & G because of a church layout during the ceremony) I've shot a grand total of 6 shots over the last 3 weddings with the 70-200 and everything else has been on 24-70 or possibly an 85.

Having said that what does the primary shooter want you to do?

Hugh
 
I've had a borrow of a 70-200 and you'll still get great shots with it, just need to stand further away for any grou shots.

But like said above, it will be great for candid shots, and will be super sharp.
 
scott1979 said:
I've had a borrow of a 70-200 and you'll still get great shots with it, just need to stand further away for any grou shots.
Click to expand...

you'll either be a looooooooong way away or thats a very small group ;)

Hugh
 
boyfalldown said:
I'm going to go against the flow here, and say go for the 24-70 first. The 70-200 is a great portrait lens, but all of the best (IMHO) stuff I've seen at weddings for the last couple of years has been shot below 70 mm. Just to give you an example (excluding where I've been stuck a long way from the B & G because of a church layout during the ceremony) I've shot a grand total of 6 shots over the last 3 weddings with the 70-200 and everything else has been on 24-70 or possibly an 85.

Having said that what does the primary shooter want you to do?

Hugh
Click to expand...

We're going against the flow and the grain then :D
 
Dino f said:
Heres a few with the 70-200
36.jpg


40.jpg


35.jpg

Dean:)
Click to expand...

That's all and good....but that's 3...now imagine ending up with 300 pics all like that at a wedding...

There is a reason why the 24-70L is a popular lens for weddings, because it is a much more useful focal length. The 70-200 is good for portraits (shoulder and above, 1 person mostly, 2 at a push) and you get no context, they could be in a garden party for all you know. And also, who says candids have to be from miles away? Whats wrong with doing it up close at 50mm? Getting good candids is not about being miles away, unnoticed, its more about how you behave. Blend in and you'll get the shots you need, and it'll be better for it.
 
70mm is quite wide on FF so there is some room for context. Obviously 24-70mm is really great for events, and I would even say it is better on crop body for that purpose (for landscapes it has to be FF though).

Just to spoil the thread, if I had to use only 1 lens or adapt very quickly to different situations, 24-105mm f/4 IS is very hard to beat.
 
daugirdas said:
70mm is quite wide on FF so there is some room for context. Obviously 24-70mm is really great for events, and I would even say it is better on crop body for that purpose (for landscapes it has to be FF though).

Just to spoil the thread, if I had to use only 1 lens or adapt very quickly to different situations, 24-105mm f/4 IS is very hard to beat.
Click to expand...

70 is not quite wide on FF its at the high end of 'normal' or the very low end of telephoto. I'm not sure crop sensors are better at events than full frame and I wonder why you think that?

The 24-105 is a great lens and very useful but f/4 is just to slow for it to be used at a wedding

Hugh
 
boyfalldown was spot on earlier when he said to ask the primary what he wants you to do. If he/she wants you to wander round taking close ups and wider shots, you'll be no use to him/her with a short tele zoom like the 70-200, likewise, a 24-70 will be of little use for shooting candids from a distance.

How about renting both lenses? The cost can be written off against tax which'll help a litle towards the cost and you won't have to fork out the full cost of a lens until you know exactly what you want.
 
Radiohead said:
What does the primary want from you?

I'm going to go against the grain - I don't like using a 70-200 for candids at a wedding. I find guests think they're being spied on and it's easy to lose trust. I use mine for some B&G shots when we're alone and that's it. Otherwise it's always a 50mm or 24-70. I get in close amongst the guests and work hard in there. I'm really not a fan of long distance head shots that don't show context.

Is the 70-200 a fantastic lens - absolutely. But the most important thing is what the primary is expecting from you.

Wedding samples - 5 of them are 70-200 - http://www.guycollierphotography.com/?p=1304

pws samples - all are 70-200 http://www.guycollierphotography.com/?p=1346
Click to expand...

I had my reception at gate street barn!!!
 
daugirdas said:
70mm is quite wide on FF so there is some room for context. Obviously 24-70mm is really great for events, and I would even say it is better on crop body for that purpose (for landscapes it has to be FF though).

Just to spoil the thread, if I had to use only 1 lens or adapt very quickly to different situations, 24-105mm f/4 IS is very hard to beat.
Click to expand...

It's far from wide. I'd also contend your suggestion that a 24-70 is better for a crop than FF for events. On a Canon that gives you a 38mm FOV equivalent. Not wide enough IMO.

There's a reason why 17-55mm's are made for crop bodies - they replace the 24-70mm range for those cameras.
 
boyfalldown said:
70 is not quite wide on FF its at the high end of 'normal' or the very low end of telephoto. I'm not sure crop sensors are better at events than full frame and I wonder why you think that?

The 24-105 is a great lens and very useful but f/4 is just to slow for it to be used at a wedding

Hugh
Click to expand...

Crop sensors are not better, but can get close in terms of IQ, particularly if one uses flash. I was rather trying to say that 24-70mm on crop (35-105mm equiv in terms of 35mm) is a bit more practical combination. That 105mm is important, and perhaps should be 135mm. Obviously 2 bodies with 24-70 and 70-200mm is ideal ignoring weight (over 5.5kg with everything) and inconvenience.
 
daugirdas said:
Crop sensors are not better, but can get close in terms of IQ, particularly if one uses flash. I was rather trying to say that 24-70mm on crop (35-105mm equiv in terms of 35mm) is a bit more practical combination. That 105mm is important, and perhaps should be 135mm. Obviously 2 bodies with 24-70 and 70-200mm is ideal ignoring weight (over 5.5kg with everything) and inconvenience.
Click to expand...

You said they were better though? I'm not sure about the flash bit either. Its not more practical, or ideal, to use a 70-200 if you rarely shoot over anything longer than an 85 and 36mm isn't wide enough for a big event.

Hugh
 
boyfalldown said:
You said they were better though? I'm not sure about the flash bit either. Its not more practical, or ideal, to use a 70-200 if you rarely shoot over anything longer than an 85 and 36mm isn't wide enough for a big event.

Hugh
Click to expand...

I can appreciate people have different shooting styles. When 36mm isn't wide enough I simply dig out 12-24mm and that is 19mm equiv (or 17-40mm on FF which OP has). I guess that must be wide enough :thinking: However if the main subject is people (group or individual) and it is not essential to include the whole hall / building in the picture, walking back a couple steps normally produces better image with less distortion and smoother bokeh. 70-200mm can't get any better for portraits / candids of individuals and couples. At 70mm on FF group shots are really good too (35mm-50mm on crop works really well). I really don't like headshots under 135mm equiv, or head and shoulders under 85-100mm equiv. Having said that most people (i.e. customers) don't have a clue and are happy to accept nearly anything.
 
daugirdas said:
I can appreciate people have different shooting styles. When 36mm isn't wide enough I simply dig out 12-24mm and that is 19mm equiv (or 17-40mm on FF which OP has). I guess that must be wide enough :thinking: However if the main subject is people (group or individual) and it is not essential to include the whole hall / building in the picture, walking back a couple steps normally produces better image with less distortion and smoother bokeh. 70-200mm can't get any better for portraits / candids of individuals and couples. At 70mm on FF group shots are really good too (35mm-50mm on crop works really well). I really don't like headshots under 135mm equiv, or head and shoulders under 85-100mm equiv. Having said that most people (i.e. customers) don't have a clue and are happy to accept nearly anything.
Click to expand...


That's the issue. A Wedding full of head, or head and shoulder shots would be rather dull and as pointed out earlier they could be taken anywhere.

I'd disagree about a 70-200 not getting any better for candids, I don't understand why its thought that you need to be a distance away for a good candid, act like you're meant to be there and build a rapport and trust with the guests, they'll soon start behaving naturally without the need for 200mm.

70 mm is far to long for most group shots, and although you don't need to cover the entire building on every shot then the most interesting shots and the ones with a real wow factor will have context to them (for the most part).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top