Canon 24 -70 f/2.8 (Page 2): True, it doesn't have IS, but I never recall blurring a shot... It's so fast, I don't think it needs it. I bought it for indoor, low-light shots and...

MrBradTurner Loc: Tejas

True, it doesn't have IS, but I never recall blurring a shot... It's so fast, I don't think it needs it. I bought it for indoor, low-light shots and haven't regretted it. It lives on my camera. Don't worry, it won't disappoint.

anotherview Loc: California

Always a good idea to do some homework before buying a lens:

Lens Review Web Sites

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/

http://www.dpreview.com/

http://www.lenstip.com/

http://www.photozone.de/

dasloaf wrote:

I'm looking at getting the same lens and went to my local camera shop. The owner of the shop said the Sigma lens was just as good for a couple of hundred dollars less and the tamron lens was also getting good reviews. Anyone have any experience with th Sigma or tamron?

susanmarie Loc: Redding, CA

I've been looking and dreaming about this same lens - I'm curious about the added weight - does this ever seem a hinderance? The reviews I've been reading have been favorable over the 24-105. I will keep an eye on postings today - thanks all.

MrBradTurner Loc: Tejas

It is a little heavy. But, frankly it makes me feel like I'm not holding a toy. And I have rather large hands, so I enjoy having something more to hold onto to study my shot. A battery grip is also nice to have with this lens because it helps you steady your hand more, but I figure that is true of most larger lenses.

susanmarie Loc: Redding, CA

Thanks MrBradTurner - that is another consideration I have had - I also shoot with T3i.

melvin short Loc: Seattle, Wa

you absolutely wont be sorry with the 24-70 f2.8, it is my walk around, and i wouldnt change that

PNagy Loc: Missouri City, Texas

georgeretired wrote:

Need a good lens for portrait with a low F stop. Any comments pro on con before I open my wallet on Wednesday. From all I've researched it reads great. A new version is coming out with the IS factor, but it drives the price up almost $1,000. thanking everyone in advance.

I have the 24-70mm F2.8. It works great without stabilization. I used it just last Saturday at a party I was hired to shoot. At the shutter speed of 1/160 sec. it kept random gestures from blurring.

I use other lenses for shooting sports at 1/320, which freezes all human movement. I am sure that with a slight uppward bump in shutter speed the 24-70 would work quite well. Its great light collecting ability will enable you to use a shutter speed high enough not only to freeze the action, but whatever movement you impose on the shot.

The 24-70mm without IS is still available, although I am sure that IS does make it somewhat better.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

georgeretired wrote:

Need a good lens for portrait with a low F stop. Any comments pro on con before I open my wallet on Wednesday. From all I've researched it reads great. A new version is coming out with the IS factor, but it drives the price up almost $1,000. thanking everyone in advance.

The new 24-70mm doesn't even have IS! It's $900 more than the current 24-70mm. It has an 82mm front element and the current model has the typical 77mm front piece of glass. 18 elements vs's 16 elements. It weighs 1/4lb less than the current model. That said, even though there's no doubt that the glass is better, how much better can the your images really get to be seen by the human eye?

mgemstone Loc: Chicago/Cocoa beach/La/NY

Atchy wrote:

I think you'd be happier with the Canon 24/105. It's a stop slower at f4 but has IS which the 24/70 lacks.
In a nutshell you have longer telephoto, image stabilisation, slightly cheaper. You'll love this lens and youll be able to shoot in much lower light than the 24/70 with its only one stop advantage.

I agree that the 24-105F4.0L IS is an excellent lens that allows you to do head to toe portrait along with head shots without moving the model or the photographer. I've not seen it mentioned elsewhere, but it is all about working distance and making your subject comfortable. The longer lens gives you that as an option.

Photogdog Loc: New Kensington, PA

MWAC wrote:

I have the 24-70 and it's on my camera 95% of the time (if not more). I use it for portraits, you can see a samples of my work on my flickr page, feel free to take a peek. (link is in my siguature).

MWAC,

I totally agree. I leave it on my 5D MKII as my standard lens. I've never felt the lack of IS to be a drawback and I'm not sure that getting it would be worth $1,000. If necessary, I'll bump the ISO slightly and/or use a mono-/tri-pod.

An added benefit is that I can "flatten" the portrait slightly by mounting it on my 50D, get the 1.6X crop factor and stretch the long end to 112mm.

PD

photoninja1 Loc: Tampa Florida

Been using 24-70 and find it somewhat sharper than the 24-105. It also keeps shadows open better. I don't know why. I don't miss IS on this relatively short lens.

pebble70 Loc: Winchester, MA USA

I have a 24-70 f/2.8 dg ex sigma that is a great portrait lens
I'm selling it because I now have lenses on both sides of that range so I don't have a need for it any longer it fits Canon

let me know if you are interested
ken@tripodphotoimagery.com

bvargas Loc: Palm Harbor, Florida

If you are using it for portraits only, just get the 85mm f1.8, for about $350.
That's all you need and if you need a zoom, then get the new Tamron 17-270mm Type II lens. I have one and use it for weddings and it is a great all around zoom. You can also use this for portraits. BV

Fran Loc: Northeast, United States

I just got this lens a week and a half ago. LOVE it!!! I believe it was MWAC that said she would marry it if it were legal in her state. After a short time with the lens I can totally relate to her affection for it!!!

MWAC Loc: Somewhere East Of Crazy

Fran wrote:

I just got this lens a week and a half ago. LOVE it!!! I believe it was MWAC that said she would marry it if it were legal in her state. After a short time with the lens I can totally relate to her affection for it!!!

Yep that was me. If it was legal in Texas and if it had better health care I would marry it in a second. :)