Originally Posted by Maeiourk
Hello Photographers! New to the photography section, but kinda old in doing photography (hobby since 2008, and still enjoying it). I kind of need an advice/opinion. I recently did a switch from Nikon to Canon. Why? Well to make the long story, short. Before the switch, I had a D7000 with 17-55mm f/2.8, 35mm f/1.8, 18-200mm f/orgot
, 18-55mm f/orgot also
, and SB-900. Decided to go FX (January of 2013), tried/tested 5 NEW D600, and all of it failed in quality control (dust/oil). Checked out D800, didn't like the feel of it, the 36MP, the 4fps, and some minor things. Planned to wait for the new production of D600, couldn't wait no more as the itch of going FX was still there. Tried to take a look at the other brand, Canon. Liked tons of reviews, found buyers for my Nikon equipment, pulled the trigger for the 5DMkIII, got the shipment, and fell in love with it (everything is just perfect). No regrets leaving Nikon. Now for my question, I'm planning to get the 24-70mm f/2.8L II, and 70-200mm f/2.8L II this year. I couldn't buy them both at the same time as they are both expensive, but aiming to get both before the end of the year. My question is, which one should I buy first? Now don't tell me it would depend on what I'm going to use it for / where I'm going to use it / what will I shoot. I, pretty much, use the range 24-200 all the time, from low light events/concert to sport/action. I can afford one of them right now, but I don't know which one to get first. Current lens I have right now is the pancake lens, 40mm f/2.8, I love the low profile look of it in my MkIII, and can pretty much bring it everywhere.
Do you guys think the 24-70 price will go down this year? Should I wait for that and just get the 70-200 first? Or should I do the other way around?
Seriously consider the 70-200mm f/4L IS instead of the f/2.8 unless you really think you'll be using the larger aperture a lot. Same thing for the 24-105mm f/4L IS vs. the 2.8. The high ISO performance of the 5D MkIII is excellent.