Suggestions for a 24-70mm Canon substitute?

qianp2k wrote:

Sovern wrote:

Well having the ability to shoot 50 at 1.4 soft or not is still a good ability to have especially when shooting weddings. I found the 2.8 aperture to not be fast enough and not give good enough bokeh at the 17-50 and 24-70 range. The 70-200 I agree is an excellent lens and probably the only zoom lens I'd ever consider buying (I'd still prefer a 200 2.8 prime over it just due to cost and because the prime will have better IQ).

L primes will still have better color saturation & micro contrast though as physically speaking glass is glass.....more glass will lower the quality of the image and the L primes and even regular primes have less glass than these L zooms.

I think that the 24-70II should be priced at $1,200 but than again I don't like zooms.

You responsed during my modifying last post. Check these real-world samples from this 24-70L II. I am impressed even at such small size.

http://blog.benoa.net/2012/12/canon-ef-24-70mm-f2-8l-ii.html

Please don't jump on conclusion too quickly. These two Canon flagship zoom IQ are truly as good as L prime at f/2.8 and beyond from perspective of IQ - sharpness, contrast and colors. L prime lenses probably still better but only slightly. Nevertheless those L primes can shoot below f/2.8 and have better bokeh probably but also not huge difference. Personally I might add Sigma 35/1.4 and 85/1.4 later but not in priority as I am mainly zoom user. I will skip 135L, 50L, 100L macro (as I own Sigma 150/2.8 OS macro) and 200L/1.8 (200L/2.0 IS is for sports similar as 300L/2.8) in portraiture. Two Sigma f/1.4 lenses I mention should be good enough for whole body, half body and shoulder above portrait and rest ranges can be covered by two f/2.8 L zoom.

I agree those photos look beautiful but still, primes are much cheaper as long as you stay away from L primes, are much faster than the 24-70, and due to being faster gives better low light and better bokeh respectively.

The primes will still be better even though slightly better than the 24-70LII when it comes to image quality.

I just don't see the point in spending so much money on a zoom that covers such a short range as 24-70 does when you can get 3 primes that can cover the same range (zooming with feet and eyeing your shot out before hand), are much faster, and offer even if it's only slightly better image quality all for 1/3rd the price of the zoom combining the cost of three primes.