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

[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

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.

Not true. A 70-200 is a great lens for portraits. Now you may need a larger space to work with. But with correct positioning you could shoot a full body, half body and head and shoulders portraits all with the same lens. Bokeh is nice on the 70-200 too.

Where you looking for a specific brand since you mentioned price? Sigma and Tamron are much cheaper and offer the same focal lengths.

 

[Ballistics]

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.

You're going to hear about this doozie of a comment for a long time lol. I shoot a lot of portraits @ 135-150mm.

Where would you ever get that 24-70 is better for portraits?

 

[manaheim]

Honestly? My opinion on this is that unelss you know for sure what you need or want, that you shouldn't be spending $1800-2500 on a lens.