Which Canon lens is better - the f/2.8 24-70mm, or the f/2.8 70-200mm?

Question

I shoot indoor photography for hockey and I'm looking for a faster lens. I can't decide between the 20-70, or the 70-200. I also shoot outdoor football games from time to time. I have a 70-300mm lens with IS (f/4.5) and it does well enough, but I'd like the faster lens. Any suggestions on which is best for indoor sports with poor lighting?

Answer 1

In all honesty, a 2.8 lens will not give you the performance you need. As another poster mentioned, the lower the aperture, the better. I would stick with something that is f/1.8 or f/2. You need as much light as possible in these situations, and even at ISO1600 or 3200, f/2.8 in professional NHL arenas and collegiate arenas is usually not enough to completely stop motion.

I would recommend you look at the 85mm f/1.8. It has superb optical quality and has the USM focusing motor so it will focus fast and accurately. It retails for about $350 (Link 1). I have used this lens extensively for indoor hockey and couldn't be happier. I would suggest pairing this with the 50mm f/1.4 lens, which retails for about $310 ( Link 2). This would give you pretty good coverage for close and longer-range shots.

Answer 2

What do you want from the lens? Allrounder, walkaround, travel zoom, portrait, macro, wide, tele, etc etc. It's difficult to recommend without knowing what you want from it. In general I think the Sigma (and Tamron) lenses are pretty good considering the price. I have a Sigma 50mm f/2.8 Macro and it's a lovely lens. The Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 IF EX DG HSM version is around £600 and the Canon EF 24-70mm f2.8 L USM version is £929 in the UK so that's a £329 difference! Personally as I dont use photography to earn a living I would find it hard to justify the difference in price. (You can save even more money by getting the non-HSM version!) As one website wrote "If the prices were the same, I don't think anyone would choose the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG Lens over the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM Lens. But, the Sigma is less than half the price of the Canon. And for that reason, many people are willing to overlook the physical and optical quality differences between these two lenses."

Answer 3

Keep in mind that unless you have a full frame SLR, there is the multiplication factor, due to the APS-sized sensor on all but the most expensive Canon SLRs. The 70-200mm lens actually will have a much narrower angle of view- closer to 112-320mm and the 24-70mm will be closer to 38-112mm. Obviously for football, the 70-200mm will be much more useful. Any zoom faster than a constant f/2.8 will be prohibitively expensive, as a 70-200 with a constant aperture of 2.8 is more than $1000 and more like $1600 in an image stabilized version.

Answer 4

Just as the other poster said, the 20-70mm is a wide angle lens while the 70 - 200mm is a telephoto lens. Both of them is f/2.8 which is considered moderate for indoor photography. Try going for around f/1.4 - 2/4 for better exposure. Because you shoot outdoor football games, i think its better if u go for the 70-200mm as it can bring capture the scene closer and more accurately as well.

Answer 5

For your purposes, the 70-200mm f/2.8 lens will be better. Just make sure to use something to brace the camera, like a monopod, to keep vibration down and reduce blur from camera shake.

The 24-70mm is better for wider shots, but not as good for sports. It's much better suited for shooting in smaller areas, like rooms, parties, etc.

Both are good lenses, but each is targeted for a different purpose. Both lenses can be used for portraiture, but the working distances will be very different.

Answer 6

The two lenses have different purposes, outside of the zoom reach. the 70-200 is the better choice for sports, inside or out, unless you have the money for a super tele.

The camera will have to make up the difference in f-stop by pushing ISO...I suggest 1600 for indoor sports and getting a monopod. But I would still suggest using the longer zoom if you can.

Answer 7

A 2.8 is a 2.8

The 24-70 is wide angle to moderate portrait. It will not bring things in close.

The 70-200 is a portrait to telephoto.

Ask yourself what setting you currently use, 70mm (full back wide) or closer like 150, 200, 300.

You'll gain almost two shutter speeds with this, going from 1/30 to about 1/90th or 1/90th to about 1/200

Answer 8

You answered your own question when you described the uses you need the lens for. Obviously the 70-200mm f2.8 is your best choice. Be prepared for smaller images as you go from 300mm to 200mm.

Unfortunately, Earl D is wrong about the shutter speed you'll gain from f4.5 to f2.8. The correct answer is one stop. So if you're shooting at 1/125 sec. at f4.5 you'll be shooting at 1/250 sec. with the f2.8. Considering a normal f-stop progression to be f1.4, f2, f2.8, f4, f5.6, f8, f11, f16, f4.5 is close enough to f4 that any difference is negligible.

Answer 9

I'd pick the 70-200 if you shoot lots of sports, but take a look at Tamron's 18-250 (35mm equiv. 28-400) f/3.5. I own one and it's mounted to my Canon XTi and I love it.