What is the best 24-70mm?

sploo wrote in post #17953283
Compared to what though? I know pretty much zero about shooting video, but the few times I've shot a short clip with a DSLR (handheld) I did find IS helped cancel out a bit of wobble. An external mic is usually required to not pick up the IS noise in the recording though.

If you're meaning that IS is a joke compared to some sort of proper stabilising rig (or video tripod) then sure - "proper" kit will always be way better.

It's a joke for any long take. If you splice and dice in post process, then sure, it's fine, but so is a monopod at that point. If you're talking about your kids, sure it'll work in a 10 second pinch. But it's a joke in any professional capacity. And hence, saying that the Tamron is "better for video" is just blatantly meh and telling of that poster's lack of video experience.

Charlie wrote in post #17953304
precisely.

try handholding @ 70mm without noticeable jitter, especially once fatigue hits. Sure, a tripod is nice, but if you're at an amusement park or the fair, you probably wont have one on you.

The A7rii 5-axis IS and the Canon Hybrid IS are fine for stationary shots. The VC and IS on most lenses are not.

idkdc wrote in post #17953318
The A7rii 5-axis IS and the Canon Hybrid IS are fine for stationary shots. The VC and IS on most lenses are not.

For run and gun, not so much, for stationary shots (performances), they are fine, certainly better than handheld.

Charlie wrote in post #17953337
For run and gun, not so much, for stationary shots (performances), they are fine, certainly better than handheld.

...So you would shoot a performance without a tripod? Blowing my mind. For amateur video, it'll work. For professional video, I see no advantage to VC. If anything, the 24-70 VC will focus worse with DPAF cinema EOS. The original post I was addressing made a sweeping generalization that the Tamron 24-70 VC is better for video, to which I'm replying, "do you even video, bro?"

This comes from my experience shooting video with the Tamron VC. I bought up the hype that VC is great for video. It isn't in my experience. It's not a big enough advantage to ignore its many downsides, despite on-paper greatness, it fails to live up to expectations in real life.

I'm saving up for a 24-70 f/2.8 II and should be ready to purchase it sometime this summer. For that reason, I'm pretty sure we'll see Canon lease a 24-70 f/2.8 IS early this fall.

Even so it wouldn't cause me to sell mine and buy a IS version.

idkdc wrote in post #17953345
...So you would shoot a performance without a tripod? Blowing my mind. For amateur video, it'll work. For professional video, I see no advantage to VC. If anything, the 24-70 VC will focus worse with DPAF cinema EOS. The original post I was addressing made a sweeping generalization that the Tamron 24-70 VC is better for video, to which I'm replying, "do you even video, bro?"

This comes from my experience shooting video with the Tamron VC. I bought up the hype that VC is great for video. It isn't in my experience. It's not a big enough advantage to ignore its many downsides, despite on-paper greatness, it fails to live up to expectations in real life.

Not so sure about the amateur stuff, either. I used some Canon IS (10-18, 18-55 STM, 24-105 STM) lenses for handheld video with a 70D. Without a tripod, the video is unwatchable. Video should be done on a tripod, IMHO. I sold my ef-s lenses and stick to stills.

Bassat wrote in post #17948159
I think what you mean to say is that the 24-70L II is the best compromise available , at any price. For sheer IQ it loses on several fronts to several Canon lenses. I did not research other brands. If you are chasing IQ, there are a lot of 'better' options.

Data culled from PZ.de. (all compared to 24-70L II)

24-70 f/4L - lower distortion everywhere, sharper corners at any aperture or focal length...

Like any and all lenses, the 24-70L II is a compromise. Given, it is the best compromise available. It is not the best at everything. The biggest drawback (for me) is the price. And like I said above, paying that much for limited zoom, relatively slow, non-IS lens makes no sense to me. I am surely not the only one who can see a LOT of BETTER options. "Best" depends on who is spending the money.

Another factor for me (aside from the IS) is that the f/4L is 2/3 of a pound lighter than the 2.8. I went back over some of my recent landscape shots, and nearly all are in the f4 to f11 range. If I was shooting a lot of interiors with low light the 2.8 might be worth it, but I also have the 16-35 to cover the part of that. That said, I am still undecided whether to go with the f2.8 or f4 for my next and probably last lens.

ebiggs wrote in post #17951903
Best is best. Conditions is conditions. Conditions aside it is the best not the best only if ............

Ok, so the Canon has the best IS too?

You have to apply conditions if the options aren't all offering the same features.

Some may live in a world where cost is not a factor, most of us don't live in that world.
Some may live in a world where they have no use for IS, personally, I do not.

Best optics remains just one criteria.
Is Canon the Best Price? Is it the best IS? no. and no.


In the world I live in, the Tamron with VC was absolutely the "Best Buy" and for much of what i intend to use it for the VC makes it the "Best tool" for the job I will be using it for.

As soon as the Canon has Best IS and Best Price I will concede that is the only BEST 24-70mm available,. Until that day, it is a subject of contention based on differing needs.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #17958592
In the world I live in, the Tamron with VC was absolutely the "Best Buy"

The question was "What is the best 24-70mm?" And the answer to that question is the ef 24-70mm f2.8L II.
The question was not what is the "best buy"!
There are two types of people. Ones that have the Canon and those that don't. The one's that don't try to defend their choice as it is just as good. It is not.

I don't need to be told how tight people's money is. I am retired on SS and a small pension. Never-the-less the Canon ef 24-70mm f2.8L II is the 'best'.
I currently own the Sigma version and the Tamron version. I totally agree both of these are very nice lenses. The Tammy being slightly better than the Sigma. These are pixel peeper level areas. Because in real life world use, both are very good. Most people, beside us, will not see the difference. Right?
But the bottom line is, if you are asking, "What is the best 24-70mm?" The correct answer is the Canon ef 24-70mm f2.8L II.

ebiggs wrote in post #17959165
The question was "What is the best 24-70mm?" And the answer to that question is the ef 24-70mm f2.8L II.
The question was not what is the "best buy"!
There are two types of people. Ones that have the Canon and those that don't. The one's that don't try to defend their choice as it is just as good. It is not.

I don't need to be told how tight people's money is. I am retired on SS and a small pension. Never-the-less the Canon ef 24-70mm f2.8L II is the 'best'.
I currently own the Sigma version and the Tamron version. I totally agree both of these are very nice lenses. The Tammy being slightly better than the Sigma. These are pixel peeper level areas. Because in real life world use, both are very good. Most people, beside us, will not see the difference. Right?
But the bottom line is, if you are asking, "What is the best 24-70mm?" The correct answer is the Canon ef 24-70mm f2.8L II.

there's no doubt that currently the best optically is the 24-70mm ii.

however, it's been repeated in this thread that if you shoot handheld, it may not be the best solution. 3 stop VC can mean the difference between a blurry image vs one that's sharp. There are many many scenarios where VC is MORE valuable than pure optics. If I'm shooting inside a museum, I'de shoot the stabilized lens everytime. On vacation? stabilization is of great convenience and the stable lens can perform better in many scenarios.

ebiggs wrote in post #17959165
The question was "What is the best 24-70mm?" And the answer to that question is the ef 24-70mm f2.8L II.

Again, no, if the Canon was the best, it would be what I own. It;'s lack of IS made it impractical for me, and not the best. "The question was NOT which is the best optically".

ebiggs wrote in post #17959165
The question was "What is the best 24-70mm?" And the answer to that question is the ef 24-70mm f2.8L II.
The question was not what is the "best buy"!
There are two types of people. Ones that have the Canon and those that don't. The one's that don't try to defend their choice as it is just as good. It is not.

I don't need to be told how tight people's money is. I am retired on SS and a small pension. Never-the-less the Canon ef 24-70mm f2.8L II is the 'best'.
I currently own the Sigma version and the Tamron version. I totally agree both of these are very nice lenses. The Tammy being slightly better than the Sigma. These are pixel peeper level areas. Because in real life world use, both are very good. Most people, beside us, will not see the difference. Right?
But the bottom line is, if you are asking, "What is the best 24-70mm?" The correct answer is the Canon ef 24-70mm f2.8L II.

The question is which 24-70 is best. You define best as IQ. There are other ways to judge best. That is what this thread is about. There is no 'best' until you define what you mean by best. For you it is IQ. Fine. For me, the 24-70II was not even an option because of the cost. For someone else, best may involve IS, which puts the 24-70 II out of contention without a second look.

There are way more than two types of people.

Bassat wrote in post #17960592
The question is which 24-70 is best. You define best as IQ. There are other ways to judge best. That is what this thread is about. There is no 'best' until you define what you mean by best. For you it is IQ. Fine. For me, the 24-70II was not even an option because of the cost. For someone else, best may involve IS, which puts the 24-70 II out of contention without a second look.

There are way more than two types of people.

Uh, OP asked which was the best ... for portraits, landscape and street. IS is useless for street unless you're going for urban scene with blurred movement (that's not necessarily street or vice-versa), tripods are used for landscape, and toss up whether it is needed for portraits. People need 1/125th of a second or faster anyways.

aznkid248 wrote in post #17947774
I shoot with a Canon 5D mark 3, I am wondering if the Tokina AT-24-70mm is better or the Tamron SP 24-70mm or Canon 24-70L 2? Unless, there is a better option than these 3.
I mainly shoot mainly portrait, some landscapes and street photography.

Quick and accurate focus is what I prioritize for street photography.

OK... stupid question: if you had to guess, when do you think Canon will release a 24-70 f/2.8 IS? I've heard there are a couple versions floating around out there in various stages of testing.

I know Nikon released theirs a while back and it has been well received. I know people claim that Canon couldn't care less what Nikon does, but somehow, I think that's hyperbole.

I read quite a few reviews of the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 IS and there were so many negative comments, I just stopped reading.

I've never used a non IS lens, it turns out. I only had the 10-22 for a few months and never did use it. That's the only non IS lens I've ever owned. I know I'm getting older and my hands aren't as steady as they once were. For that reason, I think I would have an issue with the 24-70 f/2.8 II. I want some sort of walk around lens for my 1D IV. I've never been impressed with the photographs the 24-105 IS seem to produce so that one sort of disqualifies itself.

Anyway, this decisions is not easy for me. I guess I'm hoping Canon will announce a new 24-70 f/2.8 IS sometime this fall.