Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II - Your thoughts

[Marsu42]

I really wonder if buying the tamron and a 35 f1.4 might be better than buying the 24-70 mk2
the 35 f1.4 has been tempting me to buy it for quite a while now. knowing my luck i'd buy it and they would anounce the mk2

My thought exactly: Buy the Tamron 24-70/2.8 and/or 35L instead of one Canon 24-70ii, though I'm interested if it'll live up to the hype, too.

It's the same thing like the 5d3 - you can get two 5d2 for the price of one 5d3, two Tamrons for the price of one updated Canon lens. Now of course few people need a similar backup body, let alone two equal lenses - but it helps getting the price vs. iq/feature relation straight.

[ssrdd]

its too expensive..
[its not wide and close enough focal length].

[Marsu42]

its too expensive.. [its not wide and close enough focal length].

As far as I see it, the 24-70ii is designed as an event and wedding lens to work in combination with Canon's other standard for these occasions: the 70-200ii. I guess Canon figured that when shooting people, you don't really need IS for this zoom range because of the min. shutter speed for moving objects, and that for professionals it's in the exact 70-200ii price range they're used to get for their work.

[HarryWintergreen]

its too expensive.. [its not wide and close enough focal length].

As far as I see it, the 24-70ii is designed as an event and wedding lens to work in combination with Canon's other standard for these occasions: the 70-200ii. I guess Canon figured that when shooting people, you don't really need IS for this zoom range because of the min. shutter speed for moving objects, and that for professionals it's in the exact 70-200ii price range they're used to get for their work.

very good point!

[bdunbar79]

its too expensive.. [its not wide and close enough focal length].

As far as I see it, the 24-70ii is designed as an event and wedding lens to work in combination with Canon's other standard for these occasions: the 70-200ii. I guess Canon figured that when shooting people, you don't really need IS for this zoom range because of the min. shutter speed for moving objects, and that for professionals it's in the exact 70-200ii price range they're used to get for their work.

I agree with you guys on this one.  Clearly the 24L, 35L and 70-200 L II IS are very, very good lenses.  Maybe Canon designed this one for those that need not go below f/2.8 and don't have the 24 and 35L's?  If you had the money, I'm sure it would add flexibility if you don't want to keep changing primes.  Me personally, I enjoy my 24-70 and 70-200, and I also have the 35L because I shoot a lot down there, and having all 3 gives me great flexibility.  At 50mm, my 24-70L performs just as well on IQ as the 50 f/1.4, however, I cannot go in lower light as the prime.  Just some thoughts!

very good point!