Buy 24-70 2.8 II or stick with my primes

Started Aug 9, 2013 | Discussions thread
chironNYC Senior Member • Posts: 2,379
To IS or not to IS?

Judging from the enthusiasm and the reviews, it would be hard to go far wrong with the 24-70L II. But I have to say that I personally am reluctant to get any new lens that does not feature IS.

One of the major sources of image degradation in real-life use of a lens is camera-shake. Only lenses with IS give you a robust approach to this issue. For example, I have both the 100L IS macro and the 135L, which does not have IS. For me, the 100L with IS has become much more useful than the 135 without IS--and I had always loved the 135L. I also have the new 24 IS and 35 f/2 IS, and while they are not L lenses, each is optically excellent on a 5d3 in sharpness, color, contrast, and also build.

The 28 1.8 is not Canon's sharpest lens. You might think about swapping it for the 28 IS or 24 IS or 35 IS. The 50 1.4 is a fine lens--Lensrentals in an omnibus review thinks it is the pick of the various 50 mm lenses that are available for the Canon. But it is rumored to be replaced soon with an IS version, and that would be worth getting.

If you really want to go zoom in this range, I would think about the Tamron 24-70 VC, which has both 2.8 and image stabilization in a very well-regarded 24-70--and the price is different enough from the Canon that you could add another prime and come out ahead financially.

 chironNYC's gear list:chironNYC's gear list
Sony a9 Sony Alpha a7R III
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow