The Canon 7D Kid wrote in post #14993689
=The "Canon 7D" Kid;14993689]Being $1300.00 more I would hope so! Me personally I still say the 24-105 is a better buy. Just my opinion. I cant fully speak on the 24-70 MKII because I don't have it. Nor have I used it.
If someone took 10 photos with each lens, do you honestly think that you would be able to distinguish all of the 24-105 photos from the 24-70 MKII photos. Maybe....... Maybe Not!
you wouldn't be able to tell. well, perhaps, you could personally (bokeh quality, lens flare, etc.), but when people walk through your home and look at the pictures on your wall (or throughout your facebook albums) they wouldn't be able to distinguish. I mean, who is it other than yourself do you really need to please when it comes to equipment options?
A few years ago I would have said the 24-70 was the clear winner between the 24-105. Now, even having never tried the 24-105, I would probably say otherwise. I grew very tired of the limited focal length of the 24-70. Indoors, yes, it was somewhat usable. The studio was the only environment I found the 24-70 to be a true winner. However, having abandoned any studio work, I found the 24-70 completely and utterly frustrating and eventually got rid of it. The 24-70MK2 seems like a compelling lens for studio to work in my view, especially if you have access to stunning models and backdrops. Studio work is all stopped down at the aperture anyways, so either mk1 or mk2 would do the job for me. It really just looks like a pixel peepers (and landscape shooters) wet dream to me. I'm really not sold on these super sharp lenses. Average looking people without makeup artists handy do NOT need their facial features razor sharp, which is where the viewer looks first.
Wow, I just realized that I went off on a rambling trail. I'm done.