Completely misunderstood you there.
How about the 24-105, probably about £350 cheaper than the 24-70. Both always compared with mixed comments.
To be honest I'm no expert when it comes to choosing a lens, but I guess it really comes down to whether you would benefit from having that extra stop. Can you test it out anywhere near you? What kind of camera are you using, and what kind of pictures do you take? Does the camera have a full frame sensor?
You will hear so many different sides to choosing between lenses, and not saying it's all insignificant because there are definitely things to keep in mind, but don't let it overwhelm you. Best way to find out is to try them both on your own camera, learn the basic advantages/disadvantages, and see which would benefit you most depending on what you shoot. Or if a slight advantage (in this case f2.8 vs f4.0 ) is really not worth the $ for what you're doing, considering iso technology has advanced so much recently, I would think with that range the main reason people would splash the extra $ is the depth of field. Also keep in mind there are benefits the 24-105 has the 24-70 does not, such as it's lighter, image stabilization, and that extra range.
I've never found it easy to take pictures of children either, unless I don't know them. Maybe you can get a zoom lens and take candid shots of them while they're distracted with something else?
Upon review this probably is the creepiest thing I've ever posted. By "children I don't know" I meant at weddings or not personally related, doing family portraits, and by "getting a zoom lens" I didn't mean at the park hiding behind a tree taking shots of kids on the swingset, I meant maybe while you're sitting on the porch and your children are playing in the yard you could take shots without them being aware
haha
I will have a budget of about 600 -800 USD, any decent camera I can buy with that? I would like to take sports action pictures and portraits mainly (the ofdd landscape here and there) any advice?
Definitely! Are you looking for a newer camera, or do you mind if it's used? I'm not sure if you have craigslist or something similar in the UK, but I always find great deals locally using this site. I like to recommend Canon's and Nikon's, but that doesn't mean other brands are shit just that I don't have much knowledge of them. If I was taking sports shots I would lean towards the Canon 30d/40d/50d depending on what you can find (with this series the lower the number the older the camera), but they all are very fast, as in FPS (frames per second). Nikon, I used to own the D200 (D300 is the nwer version, more pricey thoughalthough some advantages) and that seems to be the comparable version to the Canon's I mentioned, although generally a little more expensive. The newer models seem to be able to handle low light better as the technology has advanced, but that also depends what kind of lens you get with the camera.
If you're doing sports you would probably mostly benefit from a zoom lens, so I would look for a faster camera that comes with one. There seem to be a lot of deals that come with a telephoto lens (70-300mm lens for instance) and a normal lens (18-55 being the most typical), which many will say is a shitty lens but really it will take great photos for portraits and landscapes, there are just other lenses that are better for one reason or another, and usually they are freaking expensive. I wouldn't worry too much about getting into expensive lenses.
I'm sure many here have much more knowledge than I do when it comes to cameras/lenses but that's my "two cents", so if you're not sure I would post what you're looking at in here, then go from that.
