# 70-200 VS. 24-70: Battle Royale



## eric-holmes (Aug 20, 2011)

I recently shot an indoor bridal session. When shooting close I use a selection of three lenses; 18-105, 50 1.8 and 35 2.0. I mostly used my primes on this shoot due to the low light that was available. I found myself constantly changing between the two primes. I never once pulled out my 70-200. I am just on the fence again about selling my 70-200 in favor for the 24-70. For those who shoot portraits, weddings, bridals, what is your "go to " lens? I know that I have beat this horse before but I need to do it just once more. Please, no reason to say, "What length do you shoot most?". I am just looking for input on what you use most and why.

Thanks a'million.


----------



## Vtec44 (Aug 20, 2011)

I use the older 35-70 f2.8D lens if there's enough light for auto focus that I can get close, and my 50mm f1.8D if it's a low light situation that I can get closer.


----------



## tirediron (Aug 20, 2011)

It really depends on the venue.  If  it's a open-air venue where I can get close the bride and groom, than the 24-70 is my main glass, but if I'm relegated to the back of the church/venue, than I'm awfully glad that I have the 70-200 in my bag.  I would break it down by percentage like this:  24-70:  50%  70-200: 35%, the remaining 15% is divided between my primes and UWA.


----------



## Overread (Aug 20, 2011)

A combo of 24-70mm and 70-200mm is a bread and butter workhorse of a combo for many a wedding and portrait photographer. I think that its wrong to directly approach it on a one or the other basis because, as said above, different situations and venues will put different demands upon you and your gear. You've moved to the DSLR world to open up your choices and versatility; so don't be too quick to close down paths on shorter term experiences.

In addition you might find it worth your while to consider investing in a second DSLR body - letting you mount two of your shorter range lenses at the same time to flick between as and when needed (you'll also then have a backup DSLR incase one dies on you).


----------



## eric-holmes (Aug 21, 2011)

I understand that most wedding pros used a combination of those lenses. I could always rent the other lens until I can afford to buy one. But lately it seems like I find myself in closer quarters where a 70-200 is impractical. Trying to get a full body portrait with a 70-200 requires me to be quite far back.


----------



## D-B-J (Aug 21, 2011)

eric-holmes said:


> I understand that most wedding pros used a combination of those lenses. I could always rent the other lens until I can afford to buy one. But lately it seems like I find myself in closer quarters where a 70-200 is impractical. Trying to get a full body portrait with a 70-200 requires me to be quite far back.



And what about the week after when you have a shoot requiring the 70-200, which you sold?  Why not get a 50mm 1.4G, and mount that on a second body?


----------



## sierramister (Aug 21, 2011)

24-70 on the left shoulder, 70-200 on the right shoulder.  I takes about 70% with the 24-70 and 30% with the 70-200.


----------



## GooniesNeverSayDie11 (Aug 21, 2011)

I think you need to look at the camera being used as well. Everyone talks about the 24-70 being widely used, but often times that is on a full-framed camera (5D). I think the 17-40 would be better on a cropped body ( although not as fast ). Conversely, many people tout the 70-200 for weddings but on a cropped body it can sometimes be long. My very first wedding, I used a 17-50mm, a 50mm f/1.4 and a 70-300mm. The 17-50 was left on my T1i, and the 70-300 was left on an XS. It was outdoors for a family member so light wasn't an issue, and I found that probably 50% of the time, I used the 70-300 during the actual ceremony as well as candid shots of guests. The 17-50 was mainly used for wider shots of the entire wedding party, the entire group of guests, the walking down the aisle and walking out shots as well as documentary shots. Once we went indoors for the receptions it was a cramped restaurant, so I relied on the 17-50 more than anything. Most of the portraits done ( shot before the actual wedding ) were done with the 50mm but group shots were done with the 17-50 Tokina. Looking back, many of my shots sucked, mainly due to poor technique or bad lighting choices, but the lenses performed well enough that I wouldn't hesitate to use the same set up again. ( except with my 7D body and T1i body, 17-40L, 70-200L and 60mm f/2 lenses. since I no longer have that old kit.  )


----------



## manaheim (Aug 21, 2011)

I have only shot 4 weddings, but in that time I have used the 70-200 twice for 20 shots or so each time and have had the 24-70 effectively glued onto the camera otherwise.

That said, when I needed the 70-200 boy was I glad I had it... however if I had to choose, clearly I would choose the 24-70 as the primary workhorse.

EDIT: Above makes a good point... I'm using a D300.  When I go full frame I am thinking there is a decent chance I'll use the 70-200 most of the time and have that on the FF camera and keep the 24-70 on the D300 and use both.  Really not sure though.


----------



## chaosrealm93 (Aug 21, 2011)

24-70. just cuz i own it ahahhaaa. just kidding! no, i find the equivalent focal length of 36-105mm more useful over the equivalent of the 70-200


----------



## Robin Usagani (Aug 21, 2011)

I had both and sold the 24-70.  I rather use primes on closer photos.  I can always crop, walk closer, walk farther with my 35 or 20.


----------



## EPPhoto (Aug 21, 2011)

Those are part of the wedding photog trifecta!!  12-24 24-70 and 70-200!


----------



## Robin Usagani (Aug 21, 2011)

Perhaps the reason you hardly used the 70-200 is because you shoot with crop sensor?


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Aug 21, 2011)

You can sell me the 70-200 f2.8 if it mounts to Nikon.  I already have the 24-70 and love that lens!


----------



## IgsEMT (Aug 21, 2011)

Just today I was shooting a wedding and was switching b/n 70-200 and 24-70. 70-200 was more for closeups, but the moment I went wider, it was back to 24-70, even in tighter spaces, closeups, still 24-70. It was my primary lens on the Dx and my primary of Fx. I actually like it very much for portraits on Dx, since 70 becomes 100mm equivalent but 24 most often wasn't wide enough and had to reserve to 17-55 for wide stuff. 
I'm not a big hitter w/ primes. I spend great part of my photography career w/ primes during medformat days, so I try to stay away from primes now. On occasion, depending on the time I have at a wedding, I'll use a 50 on one of the bodies w/ no flash, nearly open and higher ISOs but other then that, I'm all in Zoomszzzzzz

A *lot* has to do w/ your shooting style.

Good Luck


----------

