24-70 options

If price was no worry, which would you consider?
They have the new 24-70mm f2.8 and they have the 24-70mm f4 IS that just came out.
Thing is, I will probably be using this for video work in addition to photography, so the IS would come in handy every now and then. but I like lower apertures for some reason. Would you go for the 2.8 or the IS? I'm assuming that the image quality is better on the F4 as well since it's a new lens.

I'm eyeballing the Tamron offering; f2.8 stabilized

It very depends on how you choose between f/2.8 OR f/4,
also IS OR non-IS,weight for these lens,
this can help you to choose the lens you want

Blubayou wrote in post #15313992
I'm eyeballing the Tamron offering; f2.8 stabilized

Same here, but it seems that there are some quality control issues, so much that Amazon temporarily discontinued the lens until the problems get sorted.

AAphotog wrote in post #15313957
If price was no worry, which would you consider?
They have the new 24-70mm f2.8 and they have the 24-70mm f4 IS that just came out.
Thing is, I will probably be using this for video work in addition to photography, so the IS would come in handy every now and then. but I like lower apertures for some reason. Would you go for the 2.8 or the IS? I'm assuming that the image quality is better on the F4 as well since it's a new lens.

If price was no worry, 24-70 II.

If you want mainly for video, 24-70 f4 IS.

Image quality will probably be similar f4 and narrower.

A bit redundant, but if price was no worry, definitely the canon 24-70 2.8 II. I've rented one for weddings and it is absolutely phenomenal. It's prime sharp, even at f2.8

If price is not an option, the question is do you need IS or not.
If so, get the tamron. If not, get the new canon.
If you are still concerned about price, get the tamron.

As I see it, the Canon F/4 IS < Tamron F/2.8 VC < Canon F/2.8 MII.

Also if you are using a more professional approuch and gear, most likely you don't need the IS anyway, so the 2.8 canon is the clear winner.

Eyal wrote in post #15314839
If price is not an option, the question is do you need IS or not.
If so, get the tamron. If not, get the new canon.
If you are still concerned about price, get the tamron.

As I see it, the Canon F/4 IS < Tamron F/2.8 VC < Canon F/2.8 MII.

Also if you are using a more professional approuch and gear, most likely you don't need the IS anyway, so the 2.8 canon is the clear winner.

So Pros don't use/need IS then?

If the IS is for video, why not get the extra focal range of the 24-105L f/4 IS rather than the new 24-70L f/4 IS?

Eyal wrote in post #15314839
...if you are using a more professional approuch and gear, most likely you don't need the IS anyway, so the 2.8 canon is the clear winner.

Wow.

I'm obviously not pro material; I'd rather have f/4 IS than f/2.8 non IS.

I dont do video a lot, but i'd prefer 2.8 over f4 if there are options for me to pick. But for video, the IS version might work better. I also leaning toward the tamron vc version from the brick owners point of view.

LV Moose wrote in post #15315841
Wow.

I'm obviously not pro material; I'd rather have f/4 IS than f/2.8 non IS.

Having used a 24-70/4 IS I could be a fan, it seemed rather good.

PaulB wrote in post #15315140
So Pros don't use/need IS then?

I didn't say that, so don't twist my words. If you like to argue like a kid, you are welcome to argue with the mirror.

But to answer seriously, for video, professionally, a rig which also allows you to keep the camera without vibrations and use a non-IS lens, is what I am talking about.
There are tons of video DSLR rigs which can easily allow you video without vibrations. Some better than others. I have one myself (a pretty cheap one which I got on sale for 80$), and I'm using it to shoot sport action with my 24-70 without any vibration issues.

If you just want to stand and take a video without any extra gear, that is your choice and its a fine choice, and it will mostly force you to use a stabilized lens. It doesn't make you less of a pro or not. But its completely different and now what I was referring to.

Most likely you "missed" this. So please don't act foolish like a 10 years old child. Ego boosting issues you can work with your therapist, which I'm not.
Read in the context, not what you consider a "omg he didn't!!" without any context to other things written earlier. You act more like the idiots on jerry springer by responding like that.


If you have something constructive to say, you are very welcome for it. If not and just like to smirk "professionally", please include me out of it. I'm not your friend nor your acquainted.


Have a nice day.

PaulB wrote in post #15315932
Having used a 24-70/4 IS I could be a fan, it seemed rather good.

There are people in both camps,as far as preferring IS or 1 stop more of light. I can see reasons for both. It's the, "if you are using a more professional approuch(sic) and gear, most likely you don't need the IS anyway," that gets me .