Haydon

I have the same combination Mark and feel exactly the the same with the 24-70 2.8 II and a 5D3. It's one of the few lenses I rarely need much if any sharpness added in post.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

First of all, I have the Canon 24-70/2.8L personally and it's an excellent lens. And I actually like it better for portraiture on an APS-C camera such as my 7DIIs, than I do on full frame (where it seems a little "short" for portraits, though I know many people use it that way).

IS is the least of my concerns, with this range of focal lengths... especially with a zoom that goes to f/2.8 and cameras that can easily do good quality images at ISO 6400, maybe even higher depending upon the intended use of the images.

HOWEVER, it's big, heavy and expensive. The Canon 24-70/2.8 "II" requires 82mm filters. (So do the Tamron and the Sigma... the Tammy weighs about the same as the Canon... the Sigma is 25% heavier still.)

Unless I need the flexibility of the zoom, I often just carry some smaller, lighter primes such as 28/1.8, 50/1.4, 85/1.8. I also use the Tamron 60mm f/2 Macro/Portrait (crop only & slower focus, but fine for macro & portraits). The 35/2 is on my short list, too. All these are one to two stops faster than the zoom and I can buy about three primes for the price of one EF 24-70mm!

If I were setting up a full frame, landscape kit personally I'd get the EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM... for it's smaller size, lower price, excellent edge-to-edge sharpness and unusually high 0.7X magnification capabilities (no need to carry a macro lens, too). It uses smaller, more reasonably priced 77mm filters, too. And, yes, it's got IS, though for a lens like this that's a pretty low priority consideration. (Note: I love IS on telephotos... have been using some with it for fifteen years and swear by it. While nice to have on them, I just don't consider IS a very high priority on lenses shorter than - say - 85, 90, 100mm.)

But for use on and APS-C 7DII, the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM might be a better choice... Sure, it's not an "L". But it's smaller, lighter, much less expensive... and equally high image quality/focus performance... and it has IS (and 17-55mm really is not all that different a range from 24-70mm).

Yes, third party lenses are definitely an option worth considering, and might be a good value. But there's always a risk with those, that they may or may not work properly with a future camera upgrade.

markngolf Loc: Bridgewater, NJ

I'd almost trade my putter before the 24 - 70 II. Not really. My three most treasure "possessions" are my wife, my putter and my 24 -70 II - not always in that order!!

Danny Nash

All have been very helpful. I think the only decision I have made at this point though is to stay with Canon glass.

You guys are the best!!!

Thanks and have a great Labor Day weekend!

Danny

Haydon

Haha thanks for the laugh Mark. Nice work keeping yourself out of trouble not prioritizing.

JimRPhoto Loc: Raleigh NC

Hello again, Danny. I've already replied to this, recommending the Canon 2.8 24-70 L series, which I've had a couple of years now. Another UHHoger noted that the filter size is 82mm for the version 2 of this lens, which I did not know. I have the original version and it uses a 77 mm filter. You might want to consider that. 82mm is a very large diameter, and the price of the filters go up depending on size. I bought my original Canon 2.8 24-70 used, and I've been very happy with it. Would not have a reason to trade it in for the newer one. The main feature of the newer one is a "lock" that keeps the lens from extending when you carry it pointing down. I solve that, as do others, with a wide rubber band that you use to create friction between the rotating zoom ring, and the body of the lens. Probably more info than you need at this point to make your decision. Just an extra bit that might be helpful. Good luck. JimR

Haydon

Yes the vII is a 82 mm but for some it's not as much of a concern as others. I own a 16-35 2.8L II which also shares the same filter size so buying a ND or CPL can be shared easily with both lenses.

Dutzie Loc: I'd like to know

Been there, done that. I couldn't tell the difference in IQ between the two camera bodies.(7dm2 or the 5dm4) Image seemed to be the same. So don't waist your money on a "L" lens when you will not see any difference. That very expensive lens needs a "FF" body to work properly. If you go with the 7dm2 get a f4 lens, save your $$$
D

jlsphoto Loc: Chcago SubBurbs

I purchased the 24-70 L series in 2007. I have used it on a 20d 40d and my 5dII. I love this lens. I shoot a lot of events for a group home in Chicago. For me I see no reason have an IS. On the other hand I have seen some beautiful images with the Sigma Art Lenses as well as the many other brand names for use on Canon. Maybe you should rent one to see how you like it before making the investment. For years I was like many photographers and would argue which is a better Camera, Lens excreta. Then I realized the winning photos I saw in contests were taken with many brands of cameras and lenses. I have learned the photographers take pictures not the camera. If you like your results it's a great camera and lens.

Danny Nash

Great information! Thanks again.

gmango85

Just be careful of lens size on Canon 7D ll, 24-70 is a nice size but the difference on full format and cpas may change your perspective. See if you can borrow this lens and try out the prospective. Good luck.

woolpac Loc: Sydney Australia

Tamron is a great lens the IS is an asset. I still have my canon series 1 24-70 which I have had for many years. For me on my equipment hands down the tamron is better in all areas the exception being of focus speed. I can cant speak for the series 2 canon which I belief is an improved lens over the series 1. Regardless I get more keepers with the Tamron especially in low light because of the advantage of I.S. it works that well on this lens. Camera bodies I use 1dx 70d and 5d4 4. The game has lifted with Sigma and Tamron they are in there to compete and beat with the big names. Future proofing Well thats the idea of both these companies using docking stations -- firmware upgrades.