Ef 24-70mm ii 2.8 vs Ef 70-200mm iii 2.8

[GorillaJJitsu]

A while ago derrell insisted i get the 70-200 (where are you derrell! Haha).

since that conversation a lot of people are saying “don’t get the 70-200”. My good friend Andrew (taught me a ton of photography stuff) is all for the 70-200. I’m leaning toward that because I love to shoot portraits, candids, Jiu jitsu, and events.

But here’s my question...

if you own either one can you post some sample images and why you think that lens is better than the other? I’m interested in seeing what you guys say!

 

[Dao]

I do not own both of the mentioned lenses. However, in my opinion, they serve different purposes. For portraits, I do like using a longer lens if there are enough space. For regular events type photography, the standard zoom lens is just very convenience. So I do not think one is better than other. It's all depends.

 

[Overread]

For events and sports the 70-200mm is pretty much the go-to workhorse for many many photographers. It gives you a good reach whilst having a fast f2.8 aperture (which is also practical in depth of field terms to work with). It's large and can feel heavy the first time you get it out; but its at a size and weight that regular use you can use it all day without finding it too taxing. Indeed its one of those lenses that gets "smaller" in time (where as some of the big super telephotos always feel huge).

Plus the 70-200mm is pretty much the only beast in its category - there's f4 versions which are much lighter and smaller; good for candids and such; but lacking that f2.8 aperture (and you will need that shooting indoor sports). There's also a 200mm f2 but then you're trapped at one focal length - good for outside, not as helpful inside at times (esp if you don't have second camera to use a different lens on at the same time to make fast swapping practical).

EDIT - I didn't realise Canon had released a MIII! I thought you meant the MII (which is the one I have and used in the photos below). My searching shows that the MIII mostly makes some steady improvements in things like protective glass coatings on the front and rear optics and generally more subtle image quality improvements. One aspect that appeared to go down was the image stabilisation performance - however this purely appears to be the result of Canon using a new standard for testing them and in side by side tests the performance of the two was near identical.

So basically the MII is BETTER just not a huge step up from the MII version of the lens.

 

[Designer]

..can you post some sample images ..

I don't own either one, but you should be able to find some sample images here:

Full-size sample photos from lenses

They each have different uses. I think if most of your photography is indoor event photography, then the shorter lens might work better. Portraiture wants the longer lens.

 

[ac12]

Two very different lenses, that do different things and obviously have very different focal ranges.

#1 - It really isn't an either/or.
Because they cover different focal ranges, they are really two different tools in your tool box.
Ideally you have BOTH, then pick whichever lens you need for a particular shoot.

#2 - If you have to settle for only one lens, then YOU have to make the decision of which focal length range meets YOUR needs best.
If what you need is close, and needs shorter than 70mm, then the 70-200 does not make sense.
Just as if you are shooting longer, then the 24-70 would be too short.

Some examples:

• When I shoot football or soccer, the only lens that I take with me is the 70-200, because I need the reach.
• But if I shoot a sideline activity, the 70-200 is too long and I need a shorter lens.

• When I shoot a floor event/party, I want a short lens, cuz I am shooting relatively close to the subject. The farther I am from the subject, the more likely that people will walk in between the subject and I. So I would use the equivalent to the 24-70.
• Unless I am shooting the speaker on stage, I would not use a 70-200.

The other option is the Canon 24-105/4 or Nikon 24-120/4.
Both give you more reach than the 24-70, but at the cost of a stop less light. That 1-stop may or may not be critical, depends on shooting conditions.

 

[Destin]

What are you planning to shoot?

 

[Derrel]

The two are _very _ different tools. There is no way compare the two. If you have both lenses, you will have 90% of your needs covered in almost all situations, however there is that remaining 10%, for which you need a specialty lens or two.

 

[Derrel]

I owned the Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8 L IS USM from 2006 to 2017... it was a solid performer.

 

[Soocom1]

There are several EF 70-200 lenses. The f4.0 that I have and the big momma the f2.8. It is a VERY HEAVY LENS!

Whenever Canon makes an L series lens with a min. aperture of 2. whatever, expect it to weigh a ton.

My deceased 35-350 was a monster but a solid performer. You won't be disappointed and given that the MkIII has image stabilization is a HUGE plus. (five steps if I remember)

Regardless, if you have the money, get one and run with it!

 

[RVT1K]

I don't have Canon equipment but I agree with most here in that the two lenses are mostly for different situations and really can't be held to an either/or comparison.

 

[photoflyer]

I have the 70-200 and it goes without saying, but I will, it is great. Any sample shots will just confirm that the optical quality of both is superb. It really depends on what you plan to shoot. Others may disagree but I think the 70-200 range is a bit more versatile giving you the ability to shoot missions as diverse as portraits, sports and sometimes even certain types of landscapes.

 

[Michael Smith 12]

As everyone said, they are different lenses for different purposes. You mentioned portraits, candids, Jiu jitsu, and events. Typically for portraits and candids, the 24-70 should be fine. However for Jiu Jitsu and event photography, it would be ideal to have the 70-200.