tita1948 Loc: North Idaho

I am looking to upgrade my lens. I haven't done so in 12 years. Currently I have 15-85mm f3.5-5.6, with (IS). I am interested in Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM Lens. $$$. I shoot in churches a lot and I need a low light lens. Problem is that the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM Lens does not have image stabilization. Do I need that? Is there a better option? I shoot with a Canon 7D

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

Tough call. I own a 7D. I love it for outside, but it does suffer in low light.. You may want to look at the newer Tamron 24-70 f2.8 G2 model which is stabilized. Other than that would consider a 1.8 or even a 1.4 prime. Cheaper and possibly a tad sharper. I was having similar problems and just picked up a used 6D. Not yet put it through any major trials yet, but I think it will solve my low light problem. When the wallet recovers, will be looking for a 24-105 f/4 IS for the main lens.

Laura72568 Loc: Anderson TX

The Sigma ART 24-70mm 2.8 also offers optical stabilization and has gotten good reviews! Another consideration. Bonus: $400 cheaper than Canon Lens. :)

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Since you’re shooting a crop body, have you considered the EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS? That would provide the same field of view as ~27-88mm on a full frame - a very useful range, and it has IS. BTW, if you’re ever planning on moving to FF, then the 24-70 f2.8L is an excellent lens and would be preferred, even without IS.

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

24mm on a crop body is not real wide. Will it be wide enough for yor needs?

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

Good suggestion.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

You should want to retain 'wide' on your cropped body for a general purpose zoom, where starting with a full-frame lens at 24mm moves you to a 35mm field of view. The Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM isn't cheap either, but less expensive than the L-lens and even cheaper for used versions.

Vietnam Vet

I use the canon 24-70 and there isn't any issue using it in low light without image stabilization

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

The Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM is selling for about $830 currently.... half as much as the EF 24-70mm USM II. And the 17-55mm has image stabilization, too.

The Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 "G2" is stabilized and costs about $1200, last time I looked.

But with these zooms you are still "only" getting f/2.8. Canon recently introduced the first f/2 zoom around this range.... but it's the RF 28-70mm, which isn't usable on the DSLRs... only works on the EOS R mirrorless camera.

As some have already suggested, you might consider primes instead. They can be one or two stops faster than those zooms, while still being much smaller and considerably less expensive.

- EF 28mm f/1.8 USM*... $509 (plus a few dollars for the lens hood, which is quite compact, as is this lens)
- EF 35mm f/2 IS USM... $549 (plus lens hood, this lens has stabilization, there are also IS 28mm and 24mm, but they are only f/2.8)
- EF 50mm f/1.4 USM*... $349 (plus lens hood, two full stops faster than f/2.8 zooms)
- EF 50mm f/1.8 STM... $125 (no hood needed, STM autofocus isn't as fast as USM)
- EF 50mm f/1.2L USM... $1349 (incl. lens hood, fastest 50mm available)
- EF 85mm f/1.8 USM*... $369 (plus lens hood)
- EF 85mm f/1.4L IS USM... $1600 (lens hood included, also an L-series and stabilized)
- EF 85mm f/1.2L USM II... $1900 (lens hood incl., pricey, slower focusing, fastest 85mm avail.)
- EF 100mm f/2 USM... $599 (plus lens hood, not the macro lenses which are f/2.8 and slower focusing)
- EF 135mm f/2L USM*... $999 (a legendary L-series, hood incl.)

There are also some fast Sigma and Tamron primes. Some of those might be excellent, but overall I'd put more faith in the Canon OEM lenses listed above.

I use the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 (original version). It's excellent. But when I need to shoot in lower light I switch to some of the above primes instead. I've starred (*) the four I use. Besides being faster and less expensive than the zoom, most of them are also smaller, lighter and can be less intimidating to a lot of subjects.

Keep in mind that image stabilization can only help with camera shake blur. It can't do anything about subject movement blur. You've probably run into that with your 15-85mm IS USM. Sure, you can hand hold a slower shutter speed thanks to IS, but that slower shutter speed won't freeze subject movement.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Excellent and comprehensive recommendations. I was going to suggest the 28 f1.8, 35 f2 IS, 50 f1.4 and 85 f1.8 primes for the same price instead of the 24-70 if you don’t mind changing lenses.1-2 stops faster, probably sharper and lighter, but less versatile.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

I am going to say that image stabilization is very useful when a tripod cannot be used. You could use a lens without IS but if the shutter speed falls below 1/100sec. blur is a real possibility. Inside churches you will usually need a high ISO setting in your camera and a lens that will offer good performance under those conditions. If the lens has IS so much better.

BboH Loc: s of 2/21, Ellicott City, MD

As a general rule, it is said, that if your shutter speed is greater than the lens mm you are using then you have no problem with motion blur from camera movement

Jimmy T Loc: Virginia

I have the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM (NON IS) Lens and I shoot quite a bit during our church's special events. Despite the f/2.8 aperture the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM Lens, when mounted on either my 5DIV or 6D does not perform well in our church due to the dim lighting. The low light forces you to use slower shutter speeds, and/or a higher ISO. While it does an OK job when mounted on my Canon 6D while shooting at f/2.8 I would not recommend it unless you have a terrific de-noise program. I know that this may seem to be counter-intuitive, but my Canon-EF-28-300mm-f-3.5-5.6-L-IS-USM, when mounted on either the Canon 5DIV or the 6D, gives me better results by using a combination of lower ISO and/or faster shutter speeds because it is IS enabled. Best wishes to you on your photographic journey, JimmyT Sends.

billnourse Loc: Bloomfield, NM

I have a 24-70 f 2.8, but on a full frame and it is an excellent lens, even without IS, but it would be better with. I use mine mainly for landscape on a tripod or indoor sports (fast shutter speed) so IS is not a huge issue with me. I do have a very good monopod that is handy to use and solves lot of IS issues.

I don't think it would be as versatile on a crop frame camera, as you would give up too much wide. The suggested EF-S 17-55 (27.2-88 equivalent) might be a better choice if you do not plan to ever go to full frame.

Bill

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Consider renting a candidate lens. The f/2.8 lenses, whether full frame or EF-S, are much larger and heavier lenses than your current model. They shouldn't cost too much for a week each to experiment with and see how they perform with your camera in your own real situations. It might be that neither zoom is the best choice.