Long Term Investment - Studio Lens? 24-70 2.8 vs 4 IS

I finally landed the job I've wanted for the last few years and, as a result, I'm allowing myself to think ahead a little and consider the possibilities of making some larger work-related investments this year. My weekly routine predominately consists of 90% studio (product photography, fashion, etc...) and 10% on location (small parties, events, etc...). My current go-to set up is the 7D + 17-55 2.8, which I've been happy with thus far. I personally much prefer the wider focal length for what I do as opposed to the 70-200 range. The studio I work in is nice and open but is also my office, so at times can be confining, especially when working with a model and various product. What I'm looking for, potentially, is an upgrade in build quality (and image quality) of my 17-55 that will easily handle subjects ranging from wallets to multiple models.

So, basically my question comes down to this: Is the 24-70 2.8II considered the top-of-the-food-chain-industry-standard that all studio photographers aspire to (sans 70-200 2.8), or are other lenses out there (i.e. 24-70 f4L IS) equally respectable in sharpness and versatility? In the last few days I've read countless reviews of each, but having not shot with either, I was wondering what folks on here thought. In your experience, what piece of glass has consistently met (or exceeded) your expectations in the studio over the long haul?

I have both. Well, I sold the 24-105 as it came with my kit.

No comparison. The edge to edge sharpness on the 2.8 II is unbelievable.

Studio to me means flash or tripod or both.
IS,. not so important.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #16024914
Studio to me means flash or tripod or both.
IS,. not so important.

That's been my experience as well. I do occasionally shoot some short videos here and there but nothing that really constitutes IS as a make or break feature for me.

For studio use you can do just as well with a 24-105. Its unlikely that you are going to be wide open in a studio. So the answer is any of the above.

ssuperdreww wrote in post #16024852
I finally landed the job I've wanted for the last few years and, as a result, I'm allowing myself to think ahead a little and consider the possibilities of making some larger work-related investments this year. My weekly routine predominately consists of 90% studio (product photography, fashion, etc...) and 10% on location (small parties, events, etc...). My current go-to set up is the 7D + 17-55 2.8, which I've been happy with thus far. I personally much prefer the wider focal length for what I do as opposed to the 70-200 range. The studio I work in is nice and open but is also my office, so at times can be confining, especially when working with a model and various product. What I'm looking for, potentially, is an upgrade in build quality (and image quality) of my 17-55 that will easily handle subjects ranging from wallets to multiple models.

So, basically my question comes down to this: Is the 24-70 2.8II considered the top-of-the-food-chain-industry-standard that all studio photographers aspire to (sans 70-200 2.8), or are other lenses out there (i.e. 24-70 f4L IS) equally respectable in sharpness and versatility? In the last few days I've read countless reviews of each, but having not shot with either, I was wondering what folks on here thought. In your experience, what piece of glass has consistently met (or exceeded) your expectations in the studio over the long haul?

Id love to see your product work from the 7D... The anti-aliasing filter on that camera is so gosh darn strong.

If your power packs can go down to F4 or F2.8... you should be investing in a system with weaker anti-aliasing filter... a 5D mark 2 is a great step up. Both cameras tether nicely.

gonzogolf wrote in post #16025062
For studio use you can do just as well with a 24-105. Its unlikely that you are going to be wide open in a studio. So the answer is any of the above.

And the extra range of the 24-105 might be useful in the studio. This is one reason I hold on to mine even though I have the 24-70 ii.

I'de go to full frame before considering any lens changes. Pretty much any standard 2.8 zoom on full frame will be sharper than the 17-55 on crop.

pyrojim wrote in post #16025165
Id love to see your product work from the 7D... The anti-aliasing filter on that camera is so gosh darn strong.

If your power packs can go down to F4 or F2.8... you should be investing in a system with weaker anti-aliasing filter... a 5D mark 2 is a great step up. Both cameras tether nicely.

Sure! I'll pull a sample image from my hard drive at work tomorrow.

Also, I've actually never read anything on anti-aliasing. Although, I am beginning more and more to lean towards upgrading to a full frame sooner than later. Which brings up even more decisions, such as 6D vs 5DmkII. Not to get off topic here, another thread at another time. haha

But yeah, I'll have to look into anti-aliasing, and I'll post a photo or two tomorrow.

In a studio I never shot wider than f5.6, so I found 24105 to be sufficient. I rather invest $ on lighting gear than lens.

gonzogolf wrote in post #16025062
For studio use you can do just as well with a 24-105. Its unlikely that you are going to be wide open in a studio. So the answer is any of the above.

jrscls wrote in post #16025304
And the extra range of the 24-105 might be useful in the studio. This is one reason I hold on to mine even though I have the 24-70 ii.

I suppose my decision now lies in deciding which of the three contenders [24-70 f2.8, 24-70 f4 IS, or 24-105 f4 IS] consistently produces the sharpest of images for my needs. Throw into the mix the huge benefit of upgrading to full frame:

Charlie wrote in post #16025318
I'de go to full frame before considering any lens changes. Pretty much any standard 2.8 zoom on full frame will be sharper than the 17-55 on crop.

...and I find myself back at square one. haha

Honestly what I really need to do is get my hands on a 5D mk II and a couple of these lenses for a day or two and I'm sure the decision will be much more straightforward. I REALLY appreciated all the help so far. Keep the input coming!

24-70II is definitely the sharpest of all 3, but the other 2 have their own strengths (focal length and MFD versatility respectively)

24-105L is soft as ****e for long range shots imo (based on 2 couples owned), but for shorter ranges it's quite sharp (e.g. it's sharper at portrait than landscape)

24-70 has a big MFD advantage for products etc.

If you are going full frame, then I would start out with the 24-105 bundled as a kit. You can always sell it.

With flash there are no challanges to the 7D and it's noisier high ISO- so stick with the 7D
As to Lens the 17-55IS is as good as the 24-70 mk1 and way way better than the 24-105- I have used them all.
Lets face it you dont need any extra reach in the studio- the only worry is getting wide enough.
Note the 17-55 on the crop sensor has longer reach than a 70mm on FFrame- 55mm on crop sensor is equivalent to 88mm.

ssuperdreww wrote in post #16026002
Sure! I'll pull a sample image from my hard drive at work tomorrow.

Also, I've actually never read anything on anti-aliasing. Although, I am beginning more and more to lean towards upgrading to a full frame sooner than later. Which brings up even more decisions, such as 6D vs 5DmkII. Not to get off topic here, another thread at another time. haha

But yeah, I'll have to look into anti-aliasing, and I'll post a photo or two tomorrow.

It's a filer that blurs finely repeating patterns placed in front of the sensor. Typically it's not an issue(5D2), but the one on the 7D is insanely strong-AND tht sensor is super dense meaning you need extremely sharp optics! But the 17-55 is the standard best zoom canon has made untill they updated their 24-70( yeah the 17-55IS IS sharper than the 24-70 1).

Of course you can always have the AA filter removed and I almost did with my 7D-but then I fell into a long downwards sprial into an RZ67...