47greyfox Loc: on the edge of the Colorado front range

My semi dilemma all started with the current incentives from Canon, Tamron, and Sigma with their 24-70 offerings. A tickle of GAS had me tempted to jump on the Canon. I have no particular disregard for the Tamron, but found myself mainly comparing the the non IS Canon f/2.8 vs the Sigma OS version (which I've soured against because a common criticism seems to be softness at 24mm with the lens wide open). Then, I paused and considered the lenses I own that I mate with my 6d2 and 7d2. Those EF variants being the Canon 16-35 f/4, original (?) 24-105 f/4 IS, 70-200 f/4 IS, Sigma 100-400, and Sigma 150-600 C. Given that, I started questioning what my need for the 24-70mm in the first place. Obviously, if I can't justify a need, there's no reason to buy, not that it's been an issue in the past. But, I do have to wonder why the popularity of this particular range? Is it more than the concept of a "holy trinity?" Or perhaps, it's simply a useful walk around or portrait lens? Seems to me that the extra range of the 24-105 would be preferred even tho a f/4 rather than 2.8? Bottom line, I'm looking for some personal enlightenment.

BebuLamar

First the 24-70 (or 85 or 105) ranges are only good for a FF camera in my opinion. For the APS-C camera the 24mm isn't wide enough plus the fact that all lenses in these ranges are FF lenses and if you don't use the entire image circle you waste your money. It does cost money to make a lens with larger image circle.
There is no f/2.8 lenses that are 24-85 or 24-105 so if you want the extra coverage you have to settle for the smaller aperture.

Bill_de Loc: US

The main advantage over your 24 - 105 would be if the 24 - 70 had a max aperture of f/2.8. That would give you better low light performance and a shallower DOF.

A non-photographic reason is that from birth to death new toys are fun.

--

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

The EF 24-70 f/2.8L II has a 'look' that is unique and distinct from either version of the 24-105Ls. It's sharper overall and as sharp at f/2.8 as any smaller aperture. It's as sharp as any of the L primes in the EF 24-70 range. Agreed, there are primes faster in this range and the IS and zoom range of the 24-105L IS II makes the longer zoom sometimes the more useful lens. The 16-35 f/4L IS also can do things in lowlight with IS-support you might not try with the 24-70. So, 'need' is a personal decision. If you're an 'event shooter' indoors without a flash, and since you don't have a 35L nor 50L, the 24-70 would be a reason to 'need' one. If you don't plan for the v II version of the 24-105L, that would be the lens to punt and replace with the 24-70L II.

RichardSM Loc: Back in Texas

The reason I like the L lens on aps-c cams is the fact that you use the center of these lenses for the very sharpest of the lens. Focus wide open and then stop down for sharpest photograph.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Both actions are a waste of the EF 24-70 f/2.8L II ...

MSW

as a gear junkie, I would advise as follows...
1) don't worry too much at the current time about the money....
2) buy the best gear you can
3) if it doesn't get a lot of use in the first six months, sell it

free advice, and no doubt well worth the price :)

47greyfox Loc: on the edge of the Colorado front range

Your advice is something I always have to remind myself of.

User ID

" Bottom line, I'm looking for some
personal enlightenment."

There is wisdom in your own thoughts, as posted.
So look inward ! Why ask a bunch of poseurs and
and wannabees when you have already answered
your own question while you were asking it.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

You need to go no further than your quote, "Obviously, if I can't justify a need, there's no reason to buy".
The 24-70 2.8 Nikon has been nicknamed the wedding lens by many professionals. It offers a nice range and is fast, and sharp, much, much sharper than the Sigma.

techwolf Loc: Edgewater, Fl

CHG_Canon is right. That 24-70 f2.8 has a unique look. My brother-in-law has the Canon 24-70 f2.8 and his portraits are nothing less than stunning. I believe that it is simply a lens where the whole of the lens became much more than the sum of its parts. It has a sharpness and clarity combined with superb tonality that is Canon at its best. While I am a Pentax shooter I look at that lens with a sincere fondness and a slight bit of GAS.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

f/2.8 is better on Canon dSLRs because it is usually the smallest aperture that allows taking full advantage of the AF system. (See your manual for details)

In general, the 24-70 lenses tend to be better corrected, lighter, better balanced, and sharper than 24-105 and 24-120mm offerings.

Outdoors, in sun, the 24-105 is more practical. Indoors, f/2.8 can make a pretty big difference.

jcboy3

How sharp is your 24-105? I've seen some pretty pathetic versions.

The 24-70 will be sharper and faster, and work great on both cameras (on the 7d, it becomes a good portrait lens).

47greyfox Loc: on the edge of the Colorado front range

The Canon 24-105 f/4 was the kit lens bundled with a 6d. When I bought the 6d2 during the Christmas sales last year, I kept the lens and sold the body.