24-70 f2.8 or 70-200 f2.8 which one should I get?

[Bowler4life]

Hi all, I'm getting ready to purchase a Sony a65 in about 2 weeks and I need some advice on which lens I should get with it, the Sony 24-70 f2.8 or 70-200 f2.8. If money was no object I'd get them both, but since it is I'll be getting just one of them. I'll be shooting portraits and local bowling tournaments with it. Thanks in advance.

 

[Benco]

Depends what you're going to be shooting, all round the 24-70 will be the most useful...and start saving up for the 70-200.

 

[Bowler4life]

Depends what you're going to be shooting, all round the 24-70 will be the most useful...and start saving up for the 70-200.

portraits and local bowling tournaments

 

[Benco]

Depends what you're going to be shooting, all round the 24-70 will be the most useful...and start saving up for the 70-200.

portraits and local bowling tournaments

For portraits the 24-70 will be best. On the A65 the 70-200 will give you the field of view equivalent of about 105mm at it's widest end, it's a bit too long for portraits.

 

[Bowler4life]

Depends what you're going to be shooting, all round the 24-70 will be the most useful...and start saving up for the 70-200.

portraits and local bowling tournaments

For portraits the 24-70 will be best. On the A65 the 70-200 will give you the field of view equivalent of about 105mm at it's widest end, it's a bit too long for portraits.

Thanks Benco

 

[2WheelPhoto]

BOTH!

For your portraits and events you'll use the 70-200 a LOT more

 

[Patrice]

I'll be the first to do what seems to happen on every "What should I buy?" thread in any forum anywhere.

Here goes:

You don't need either one of those. My buddy 2 streets over who shoots for a hobby says you need a 35mm f/1.4 and a 105 f/2.8 macro. Primes are where it's at don't you know!

Seriously: of the two choices given, and your post seems to imply you don't have any other lenses, the mid range zoom might be the more useful lens.

 

[412 Burgh]

I disagree with Benco I love using my 80-200 for portraits. It's actually my only lens I use for portraits!

 

[2WheelPhoto]

I disagree with Benco I love using my 80-200 for portraits. It's actually my only lens I use for portraits!

Yeah i like my 70-200 around 85 mm for normal portraits, and 200mm for outdoor stuff and such when I'm trying to get the mad depth of field pow-ah

 

[Bowler4life]

Seriously: of the two choices given, and your post seems to imply you don't have any other lenses, the mid range zoom might be the more useful lens.

The only other lenses that I have are: 50mm f/1.8, 70-300 f/4.5-5.6, and the kit lens. None of these are fast enough for shooting low light action shots, except for the 50 and it's not long enough.

 

[Patrice]

Seriously: of the two choices given, and your post seems to imply you don't have any other lenses, the mid range zoom might be the more useful lens.

The only other lenses that I have are: 50mm f/1.8, 70-300 f/4.5-5.6, and the kit lens. None of these are fast enough for shooting low light action shots, except for the 50 and it's not long enough.

Well then, if 50 mm is not long enough your choice is down to the 70-200. The step from 50 mm to 70 mm is really not that great so you won't get much more "reach" with the 24-70.

 

[Bowler4life]

Thank You all for your replies. I decided to go with the 70-200. I also decided to go with the a77 instead of the a65. They both should be here tomorrow afternoon when I wake up. Thanks again!!!

 

[Kolia]

Good choice on both counts !

 

[DiskoJoe]

Depends what you're going to be shooting, all round the 24-70 will be the most useful...and start saving up for the 70-200.

portraits and local bowling tournaments

I would get the 70-200 for this. You could use the range for bowling and it makes a good portrait lens.

Also if you want a mid range zoom go for the sigma 17-50 f2.8. Great lens for the price.

 

[ghache]

70-200 hands down. the 24-70 becomes very very handy indoor and tight space. if you have the space and locations, 70-200 at 135mm is where the moneys at.