Before I buy this Canon 24-70 2.8 I have one question.

I can't figure out which one I want to buy. I keep going back and forward. I have a tamron 28-75 2.8 and I also need a telephoto. I rented a 70-200 2.8 IS II, but I know its no way I can't pay 2k + for a lens. The wife is letting me buy a mark I verson or the 24-70 2.8. People keep saying in all the post the image quality are very close and its not worth paying 900ish more for the canon. In the back of my mind something is saying go for the canon 70-200 2.8 IS, but another part of my mind is saying the 24-70 2.8. I ask this in the lens forum also. Yesterday after I did the wedding I really enjoyed using the 70-200 even tho is was to long for anything but the church shots.

I love my 24-70, never tried the Tammy so I vote Canon L FTW

It seems like every wedding photographer has the 70-200. You also need a lens to handle when you are close up. I bought the 24-70 first and will get the 70-200 when I really need it.

I started off with the 24-105 as a happy medium to only being able to afford one lens and needing both a good lens that can shoot wide and have a pretty decent zoom. Now that I have the 70-200 I still LOVE my 24-105 and use it way more then the 70-200. I LOVE having a 70-200 but I don't find it essential to have.

Although if you like the Tamron and think it fits your needs in the 24-70 gap stick with that and get yourself a 70-200. No need to overlap on focal range if you don't have to!

I've never tried the Tammy, but given the collection of lenses in my bag, I think I could safely say that more than two thirds of all my wedding shots pass through my 24-70.

Thanks everyone. As I go through these wedding pictures. I notice I did over 833/1100ish with the tamron 28-75 so I guess the canon 24-70 2.8 it is. The tamron had trouble focusing at the reception.

Another quick question. I'm about to buy one for $1150, but amazon has one for $1258 Should I buy the new one instead? I'm thinking yes.

24-70 is a bit hit and miss, ask Lloyd. 70-200 IS I or II is generally bullet proof. Since the 28-75 covers that range, and you can use AF assist if you need to, I vote 70-200.

I'd vote for the 70-200 as well. Love mine to bits.

tim wrote in post #11934743
24-70 is a bit hit and miss, ask Lloyd. 70-200 IS I or II is generally bullet proof. Since the 28-75 covers that range, and you can use AF assist if you need to, I vote 70-200.

Ditto on this - the 70-200 can be used for pleasant, candid portraiture, really isolating the background, or some landscape work where you really want a narrow view or selected, specific field of coverage. Plus the IS really performs as advertised.

Downs Photography wrote in post #11928374
Thanks everyone. As I go through these wedding pictures. I notice I did over 833/1100ish with the tamron 28-75 so I guess the canon 24-70 2.8 it is. The tamron had trouble focusing at the reception.

Was it really dark, with no flash assistance? I'd think that center AF at f/2.8 would be fine for that lens... but then I wasn't there.

Yeah, I would totally go for the 70-200 2.8 version 1. This is what I use and have no desire whatsoever to upgrade to the version 2. It has produced thousands of top name magazine cover shots from Sports Illustrated to Vogue... so really I cannot see how anyone can possibly think it would be "settling" by getting the version 1 over the version 2.

No lens model on earth has given be more grief and problems than the 6 or 7 copies of the 24-70L I've owned. YMMV.