28-70 ed-if afs "D" or 70-200 ed-if afs "G"

[JetEye]

Both are f2.8 lens and expensive.
If you had to pick only one lens which one would you pick?
It will be used for kid's portrait and active snap shots.

TIA

[lightwrangler]

Tough question, it really depends on what you like to shoot and what you anticipate you will shoot in the future. From your brief description of what you shoot, I'd go with the 28 -70. It will be far easier to handle and use without a tripod and take up much less space in a bag. The wide angle is equiv to about a 35mm in film, which is okay for groups and scenics (although it would be nice to have more) and the tele equiv is 105mm which is good for closeups and portraits. This lens would most likely get more use than the 70 - 200mm. Later you may consider the longer lens or save a lot of money by buying a fixed tele and a fixed wide for those times when you'd like more at either end of the range.

[JetEye]

Thanks for a quick reply.. :)
Yep.. That is what I was thinking also. Most of the time I'll be shooting kid's portraits; snapshots to be more acurate :)
But, I also like to shoot small wild animals far away. I know 200mm isn't enough but since 70-200 is 2.8f I was considering. I guess I could get other 300mm lens or longer...
Anyway, I'll be looking into getting 28-70 soon.
It appears that B&H is out of this lens. Any other store that carries this? Does anyone know?

TIA

[Sneakyracer]

For me its a no brainer. If I could only afford one it would be the 70-200mm f2.8. It really replaces primes in the 100-200mm range (have you seen a 200mm f2.8 AF-D lens? doesnt exist.) In the 28-70mm range a good 50mm f1.8 would get the job done along with a 20mm f2.8 and you save a bundle. For a wide angle-short tele zoom consider the 24-120mm AF-D, I have one and its a really good lens.

[AnthonyH]

These two lenses are very different. I don't see how they can be compared. You need first to decide what sort of subjects at what typical distances you shoot most. I'd like the 70-200 myself, but it can wait because the 28-70 covers most of the things I shoot very well indeed - and it's a superb lens, optically at least the equal of the old but very good 35-70 but with more range, more saturated colour, and less tendency to flare. If you want a general purpose lens for the S2 I think it's ideal, and a better all-round performer than either the 24-85 or 24-120, both good lenses but with much more uneven performance across different apertures & focal length settings.

[Rockyw]

We bought the 28-70 and and the 70-200VR with the camera. We have only used the 70-200 three or four times. Balcony shots and a couple times outdoors. The 70-200 is to tight for most things and very BIG! The 28-70 is great for indoor and out and is the lens we keep on the camera most the time. Both are great and have there place but thee 28-70 has more uses.

[alanb]

The new 24-120mm "VR" is awesome and cheap!