Check out The Dynamics of Photographic Lighting section of our forum.
I can only afford one! 24-70 vs 70-200 2.8 help!
Mar 11, 2013 11:20:55 #
Nana Jules
Loc: Iowa
First off..I want to thank all of you for my daily devotions!! I have been a follower for well over a year! You have taught me sooooo much. I just got brave enough to sign on.
Now here's my dilemma.. I have a nikon D7000 and I really want a fast lens for both portrait and sports. I can't decide between the 24-70 2.8 (which is what i thought i wanted?) and the 70-200 2.8. I was just reading on another topic today someone saying how portrait needs to be at least 85mm. ???? I mostly just take of my grandchildren and their events!!
I went to our gymnasium and took shots from the top row of bleachers and very rarely did I need over 70mm? I also have a 50mm 1.8 and nikon 18-200 3.5-5.6 lens. In a perfect world I would own both!
:-)
Now here's my dilemma.. I have a nikon D7000 and I really want a fast lens for both portrait and sports. I can't decide between the 24-70 2.8 (which is what i thought i wanted?) and the 70-200 2.8. I was just reading on another topic today someone saying how portrait needs to be at least 85mm. ???? I mostly just take of my grandchildren and their events!!
I went to our gymnasium and took shots from the top row of bleachers and very rarely did I need over 70mm? I also have a 50mm 1.8 and nikon 18-200 3.5-5.6 lens. In a perfect world I would own both!
:-)
Mar 11, 2013 11:24:59 #
Nana Jules wrote:
First off..I want to thank all of you for my daily... (show quote)
I would think, of the two lenses mentioned (24-70 and 70-200), the 70-200 would be much better for portraits AND sports. It would be my preference.
Mar 11, 2013 11:31:30 #
Pepper
Loc: Planet Earth Country USA
brucewells wrote:
quote=Nana Jules First off..I want to thank all o... (show quote)
I agree :thumbup:
Check out Street Photography section of our forum.
Mar 11, 2013 11:32:12 #
Nana Jules
Loc: Iowa
[quote=brucewells]
So can I use it for indoor portraits...limited space? Seems too close?
Nana Jules wrote:
First off..I want to thank all of you for my daily... (show quote)
So can I use it for indoor portraits...limited space? Seems too close?
Mar 11, 2013 11:45:31 #
Nana Jules wrote:
First off..I want to thank all of you for my daily... (show quote)
I agree with brucewells and pepper. The 70-200 will give you greater versatility. Take a look at this thread which is only very recent and relates to your situation - http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-102577-1.html - and don't be afraid to look outside of canon/nikon to Sigma.
Mar 11, 2013 11:50:03 #
Nana Jules
Loc: Iowa
craggycrossers wrote:
quote=Nana Jules First off..I want to thank all o... (show quote)
Mar 11, 2013 13:40:02 #
You could use either for portrait but the 70-200 is really the best for sports. I would go for the 70-200.
Check out Drone Video and Photography Forum section of our forum.
Mar 11, 2013 14:58:50 #
Sheila
Loc: Arizona or New York
I had a similar concern and checked comments on both lenses from various sites. I choose the 70 to 200 lens and have been happy with my selection. The articles seemed to think that the 24 to 70 needs an update to bring it to the level of the 70 to 200.
The lens is very sharp, good contrast and plenty of speed.
On your camera the lens is effectively a 100 to 300 lens. A 90 + lens is excellent for portraits and you will have plenty of zoom for sports shots inside and out. If you change to a full frame camera in the future the lens would fit perfectly into a lens range.
The lens is very sharp, good contrast and plenty of speed.
On your camera the lens is effectively a 100 to 300 lens. A 90 + lens is excellent for portraits and you will have plenty of zoom for sports shots inside and out. If you change to a full frame camera in the future the lens would fit perfectly into a lens range.
Mar 11, 2013 15:05:33 #
What is the typical space you are taking pictures of your grandchildren like? Do you have a lot of room? What kind of pictures do you want, full body, just head shots?
With the 70-200 you might find you don't have enough room in a typical sized living room to back up to get the shot you want. The 24-70 might be enough of a reach without pushing you awkwardly into corners of the room.
With the 70-200 you might find you don't have enough room in a typical sized living room to back up to get the shot you want. The 24-70 might be enough of a reach without pushing you awkwardly into corners of the room.
Mar 11, 2013 15:28:49 #
You have everything you need to make your decision. Your 18-200 covers the entire range of both of your 'considered' lens. You can easily check the working distance you need most based on the zoom range you use most on the 18-200. Then make your decision based on what range you want the faster lens. I recently bought the 24-70 and as expected, I am quite fond of it. I don't shoot night time sports, and already had a longer reach, slower lens. Another consideration may be that both lens are heavier than what you use now. I believe the 70-200 is over 2.5 times the weight of the 18-200.
Mar 11, 2013 15:59:50 #
Nana Jules wrote:
... I have a nikon D7000 and I really want a fast lens for both portrait and sports.
The 70-200 would be best for sports and at its low end good for portraits. But dont forget, the D7000 turns that into a 105-300 equivalent because it is cropped.
The 85mm you mention is for a head and shoulder portrait with a full frame sensor. For a D7000 that would equate to about a 55mm lens. So the 24-70 (works like 36-105 on the D7000) could also be used for portraits at its high end.
Check out Digital Artistry section of our forum.
Mar 11, 2013 17:07:20 #
Nana Jules
Loc: Iowa
Thank you all so much for replying. The weight could really be a bigger issue than I thought. I think my 18-200 is heavy! What to do?!
Mar 11, 2013 17:12:06 #
Rather than relying on our experience, which may not be relavent to you, rent a 70-200mm for a week and try it out.
Mar 11, 2013 18:16:06 #
Nana Jules wrote:
Thank you all so much for replying. The weight could really be a bigger issue than I thought. I think my 18-200 is heavy! What to do?!
As photoninja1 suggests, getting your hands on each lens at a camera store would probably help. If size is a consideration for you, I checked the lens specs, and your 18-200 should weigh 565g and extend approx 3.8in from your camera. The 24-70 weighs 902g, extends 5.2in, and the 70-200 weighs 1540g and extends 8.2in.
Mar 11, 2013 21:02:49 #
Consider the 70-200 f/4. One stop slower, but $1000 less and not as heavy.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Check out Software and Computer Support for Photographers section of our forum.