Nikon announces the Nikkor Z 24-70mm F2.8 S II

[Del Paso]

I get your point but I actually never shoot with low shutter speeds handheld. When I want to do that kind of photography then I use a tripod. So I actually would prefer the lower weight.
But I already have the RF 24-70 L anyway now so I don't care. I know it has its flaws but all in all it's the best zoom lens I have ever owned, I'm really happy with it.

See, I own 5 or 6 tripods, but no longer use them. I bought them in my Kodachrome 25 or 64 times...
My best non-telezoom: the 15-35, stunning sharpness. I tested the 14-35 before buying it, also very good, though a bit disappointing at 35mm. Corners were a bit soft. Therefore I bought the much heavier 15-35, 35mm being my favourite focal length.

 

[josephandrews222]

I get your point but I actually never shoot with low shutter speeds handheld. When I want to do that kind of photography then I use a tripod. So I actually would prefer the lower weight.
But I already have the RF 24-70 L anyway now so I don't care. I know it has its flaws but all in all it's the best zoom lens I have ever owned, I'm really happy with it.

ThomasTH: Most of my tripod usage involves telephoto lenses, eclipses and the like...

...and the ability to hand-hold the RF 24-70 2.8 IS at remarkably long shutter speeds is a feature that I do not wish to relinquish.

I guess what I am admitting here is that perhaps I don't trust my own photographer's technique all that much--image stabilization is a crutch of sorts...my favorite crutch!

Seriously, though, for various travel images in locations devoid of decent light, Canon's in-lens IS has been a lifeline for me--so much so that the EF 35mm 2.0 IS lens still finds its way onto a camera of mine. I only seldom travel with a tripod.

In other words, I prefer not to rely only on the in-body stabilization that bodies such as the R5II offer.

And I agree with your assessment of the 24-70L lens--it has surpassed all of my expectations.