burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

If you do some research, you’ll find it’s a bit more complicated. The MTF performance of a full frame lens is REDUCED when it’s on an APS-C body. Yes, the sharpness is more CONSISTENT from comer to corner, but overall performance is reduced, and any flaws are magnified.

That’s why Micro 4/3 users will pay $650 for MetaBones SpeedBoosters to attach Canon EF and Sigma lenses to their Olympus and Panasonic bodies. The SpeedBooster shrinks the image circle of the larger format lens, gaining a stop or more of effective brightness, shortening the focal length, and improving sharpness.

Fotomacher Loc: Toronto

I have a Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8 AFS which is one of the few lenses that I bought new. I sold a 28-70mm f/2.8 AF for more than I paid and supplemented with more cash. You’d have to pry this lens from my cold, dead hands its just that good!

gsmith051 Loc: Fairfield Glade, TN

The only thing I don’t like about the Canon 24-70 f2.8 lens is the weight. It is a little too heavy to lug around all day.

uhaas2009

24-70 vs 28-70? What do I miss?

kcooke Loc: Alabama

About 80% of my photographs are taken with a 24-70. It’s my walk around lens. I use the Tokina AT-X 24-70mm f/2.8 PRO FX for my Canon 6D Mk II. Most reviews say it is better than the first version canon 24-70 F2.8 but not as good as the version II. I’m talking about image quality. It focuses slower than the Canon lenses though. It is also big and heavy. Even more so than the Canon 24-70.

MountainDave

I can say from personal experience that the 24-70 2.8 II delivers much better performance than the 24-105. Besides being sharper, the AF works much better i.e. faster and accuracy you can count on. The color rendition is also better. It's also built like a tank. Plus the 2.8 aperture is very useful. I could never go back to a max of f/4. I've traveled extensively with mine to all kinds of climates and altitudes. I've taken it climbing mountains, backpacking and long treks. It always performs flawlessly. I use mine mostly on a 5D IV but I also use it on a 77D for long hikes and climbs when I want to save weight. It performs great on that camera too.

wcmoorejr Loc: Birmingham Alabama

I use the 24/70L 2.8 for dog sports. No flashes are allowed so I need the low fstop. It is wide enough that I can get both racing lanes in frame. It is also my goto lens for shooting portraits.

bpulv Loc: Buena Park, CA

I can tell you this from my personal experience. I have a large collection of lenses too. Every time I traveled, I filled my roll-aboard camera case with my D800 body and four or five lenses. It was a hasttle every time I traveled. In 2018 my wife and I flew to London and when we got to LAX to start the trip, the ticket agent would not allow me to take the roll-aboard as carry-on luggage because the airline had a 7 Kg (15 Lbs.) limit on carry-ons. When I opened the bag and displayed its contents, she called her supervisor who required me to transfer everything but the body, lenses and flash unit to our checked luggage before she would place a special tag on the roll-aboard that allowed me to take the still overweight bag into the cabin. It was not fun sitting on the floor in the middle of a very busy airport redistributing equipment between three other suitcases. When I got home and started to edit my photographs, I looked at the metafiles and realized that, with the exception of four exposures out of over 2,800, I had taken all my photographs with my f/2.8 24-70 mm lens. Since then I either only take the 24-70 or take the 24-70 and my 28-105 mm f/4.5 which, with its considerably shorter length, is better for photographing out tour bus windows when I am on a crowded bus where I cannot occupy two seats.

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

Most of the photography I do uses focal lengths within the 24 to 70mm range. For me, having a 24-70mm lens makes a lot of sense. That's the way I see it.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Because the 28-70 is less than a 3/1 zoom ratio, it CAN be a slightly sharper/cheaper lens than a 24-70 3/1. Also, smaller/lighter.
.

Bill Emmett Loc: Bow, New Hampshire

I've been shooting the Tamron SP 24-70mm f2.8 VC, G1 lens for years, both professionally, and personal use. I keep all my lenses calibrated using the latest version of "FoCal" for all my Canon front line cameras. (5D Mark IV, and 7D Mark II) I've found the 24-70mm Tamron my go to lens for most of my shots. It has good color rendition, it is fast focusing and really good VC, the Tamron version of IS. When I bought the lens I wanted a 24-70, f2.8 lens with IS, Canon did not offer this in their lens line up. I found this lens a great walk-around lens, when doing "Photo walks" in the French Quarter when I lived in New Orleans. I use it now in New England, shooting farms, barns, both indoor and out. It is also much less expensive lens. I also liked it while shooting real estate, although at 24mm at the wide end was not wide enough for some shots, so I invested in a EF 16-35L lens, and shot from a tripod. The Tamron warranty is much longer than Canons 1 year, too.

S

Tom9

I used the canon 24-70 2.8 L lens together with my canon 5d full frame camera for nearly all my wedding and nursery photography...super all round lens for portraits and group shots etc and also great for both inside low light church areas and also various outside weather conditions including bright sunlight ( i always had the lens hood on )

ggab Loc: ?

Late to the party, however here is my $0.02 worth:

I have the Tokina 24-70 f/2.8 and have used it at events where flash was not appropriate and I needed to shoot hand held. I get mixed results.
I recently bought the Canon 24-105 f/4L IS USM II. I tested it indoors hand held and received a better keeper rate. The difference being the IS on the version II vs no IS on either the Canon or Tokina. It also allows for greater reach which allows for more "distance" shots indoors catching people being themselves vs posing.

I do not do portraits and very rarely use a tripod inside, at this time.

This is why I bought the 24-105 f/4L IS USM II vs the Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8 II.

Like I said, my $0.02 Worth.
Good luck

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

Thanks, I pulled the GAS trigger this morning. I have the 1st version of the Canon 24-105 f/4L and enjoy the IS. For the most part, I’ve been reasonably satisfied with the results. Version II is reported to be even better. I thought I’d give the 24-70 f/2.8 a shot mainly for the extra stop and sharpness reputation. I am a little concerned about the lack of IS but since I don’t do video and generally shoot 1/2500-1/1000 shutter unless on a tripod or monopod. Worse case, Canon gets it back.

ggab Loc: ?

I am by no means an expert on shooting indoors or even shooting outdoors!
However isn't 1/2500, 1/1000 shooting indoors even at f/2.8 a bit extreme, yielding a dark image unless there is very strong lighting?