Printable View
Hi i'm looking for a walk around lens. I don't want to have to keep changing or cropping into zoom pictures. I take a ton of kids and portraits and weddings plus travel!! which would you consider?
24-70 f2.8
or 70-200 f2.8
i have the cannon xsi with no plan for upgrade yet
thanks.
What lens are you using now? The kit lens? How much cropping are you doing?
On your camera the 24-70 is a "normal to telephoto" zoom and the 70-200 is a "telephoto to extreme telephoto" zoom. Personally, I would find both of them to be far too long to use as a walkaround, but it sounds like you prefer to do telephoto rather than wide angle. In that case, I would suggest the 70-200.
i use the kit lens. however i do probably 30% cropping of all pics. i also need a lens to blur the background. looking for great beach and zoo pics as well as sports.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ksweets8
That makes it even more certain: go for the 70-200. You'll love it.
based from what you've said, i'd suggest the 70-200 as well.
:)
Since you're looking for a walking lens, let me throw the 70-200mm f/4 into the mix. The f/2.8 version is big and much heavier than the kit lens and you'll still be able to get excellent background blur with f/4 at these focal lengths.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolf
Good point, wolf. Renting it for a week from lensrentals.com is a good way to make sure you can put up with the extra weight. (Not to mention the price savings!)
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolf
That is certainly true in many circumstnaces. Personally, I find f/2.8 very necessary for getting background sufficiently blurry for me on an APS-C. I can make do with f/4 on full frame, though. But everyone's taste is different, and many people will shoot at f/5.6 or f/8 anyway.
Since you dont have any plans upgrading your xsi, why not consider the EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS? With the 24-70 f2.8 you will lose 7mm on the wide end and thats a lot.
I, for one. would highly recommend the Canon 24-105mm f4L lens for a walk around. Expensive, but I feel worth every hard earned cent.
I wouldn't go out with out it.....You have wide (24mm), and a decent zoom (105), and it's sharp and fast.
I have the 70-200mm also, and I find in many cases it is limiting, (and heavy)-- & you often have to keep moving back to get your shot. I do love it, but seldom use it for general walk around, where I never know what I want to shoot or what I'll run into. If I'm headed to the beach or the woods, or a sporting event, I mount the 70-200mm.
The 24-105mm is lighter than the 24-70mm, and the IS makes up for alot, I like having the extra reach of 105mm vs. 70mm!
For a walk around combination; on our last shoot in England I used my XTi with a grip/hand strap and the EFS 17-55 2.8 IS USM almost entirely because the lens is made for a crop camera and the weight is very hand holdable for long periods.
2.8 helps when the light is wanting and you don't or can't use a flash. The lens is also very small and the built quality/optics are second to none, dare I say it should be sporting a red ring.
I did use other glass including the 70-200 2.8 IS USM and on that body it is a little front heavy. I much prefer to mount that lens on my 1DMK11, better weight distrubution.
Hope this helps some what.. Be safe and happy shooting Chris...
I have owned both 24-105 and the 24-70 and I would definitely say the 24-105 is the better walk around lens. The 24-70 is bulky, kind of awkward and definitely needs a bigger body to balance it out. The 24-105's extra 35mm of reach is nice also.
The 24-70 is definitely a great lens, I just don't think walk around when some one mentions it.
Hi Keith,
Thanks so much for your opinion. I have never used the 24-105 lens so I can not comment on it.
Would you tell me what body you used that lens on and what you mostly were shooting with it?
Thanx..
Chris...
I own both, though I haven't had the 24-70 for long, and I used for more or less 5 months the 70-200 2.8 NON-IS as a walkaround. I, contrarily to what most people think, don't find it heavy: I can carry that lens for a whole day (I did many times during my trips) without stopping (more or less 8 hrs of walking through cities and such). I love the reach and everything. I bought the 24-70 mainly because it's wider and usually 70mm is enough for me (not always though, that's why I bought the 70-200 first).
I,too, own an XSi, and many people told me that 24mm is not that wide on APC-S, but I did some testing with my 18-55 and found out that I rarely went wider than 24, so I was good to go.
Finally, my suggestion is the 70-200, because you also mentioned sports and stuff (which i shoot too). If, walking around, yo find out you need a wider reach, get the 24-70, which is mind-blowingly good :D
hope this kinda helps
Andy
Hi Chris
I shot everything with my 24-105. It was the most used lens I had. I used it exclusively on a 5D mkII. I shot portraits with it, product shots and landscapes. The landscape were a bit of a let down. At 24mm the lens displayed a considerable amount of CA on the outer 1/4 of the images. I also ran in to issues where I couldn't get as shallow of depth of field I wanted on scenic portraits, like in a smaller rooms.
I switched to the 24-70 mostly just for the 2.8 aperture. For landscape/architectural I use my 16-35 2.8 II so the wide angle CA was almost a non issue. I don't do much walking around photography. If I did I'd probably invest in another 24-105. I totally agree with Bryan that one doesn't replace the other.
Thanx much...
Personally, I find the 70-200 too long for travel use (that is if, by travel, you mean vacation travel), and think the 24-70 would be perfect.
On the other hand, for portraits (especially of kids) 70-200 is by far my most used lens.
thanks so much. I just rented the 24-105 f4 to test it out. I love that you can do before spending the money. I recently started doing weddings as well and i'm trying to figure out lens for that as well. thanks everyone for there opinons!
amy
Hi Chris,
I use my 24-105mm on a Canon 40D....I love the combination, and I have taken some wonderful shots with this lens, it's a lot better than I am. Check it out if you would like, here is my flickr page, and I have shots with both the 24-105mm f4L IS, and the 70-200mm f4L IS... :
http://www.flickr.com/photos/newadventurefrombcam/
I really love my 24-70, but if you're looking for a good travel/walkaround I'd probably also suggest the 24-105 (though I've never actually had the pleasure of using one). The 70-200 is pretty long (especially on a APS-C) for most "walkaround" type photography imho.
Hey camrich22,
Good to hear from you.
I have never used the 24-105 but from what I read it's a GREAT lens. If our kit needed this lens I would really have a good look. It seems a lot of photographers like this lens.
I can relate how you like the 70-200, we use the 2.8 and find it is tack sharp and VERY versitile/robust. A lens we would NEVER give up.
Happy shooting and be safe..
Chris...
I own and love both. If your going to carry it around alot, you'll be much happier with the EF24-70mm f/2.8 L IS USM. The 70-200 draws more attention, weighs more, and is generally not very good for group portraits, landscapes, architecture, etc.... at least not on a crop body.
You know the answer on this forum is always, "get both."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dallasphotog
get a 24-105 too, and a fast primes, and a 100-400....
Unless you've already got them. In that case, get a 400 f/2.8, unless you've already got that, in which case get a 800 f/5.6....
[:P]