which lens would you rather have?

I used to own the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L (v.1) and it was the best lens I've ever owned .... BUT .... It was so heavy I eventually sold it. Some people don't mind the weight, but I never wanted to carry it around (family photojournalism type stuff).

kmilo wrote in post #18452022
I used to own the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L (v.1) and it was the best lens I've ever owned .... BUT .... It was so heavy I eventually sold it. Some people don't mind the weight, but I never wanted to carry it around (family photojournalism type stuff).

... and I carried 30 pounds of camera gear in the Himalayas for like 60 miles. That was a hike. There's like no level ground in that country. Up up up. Even going down was up...

I've been loving my Sigma at the moment

kmilo wrote in post #18452022
I used to own the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L (v.1) and it was the best lens I've ever owned .... BUT .... It was so heavy I eventually sold it. Some people don't mind the weight, but I never wanted to carry it around (family photojournalism type stuff).

This true about the 24-70 v1?

"The image quality difference is subtle -- but like most lenses, you wont notice an image quality difference if you're viewing images on a small display.  You'd have to view them at 100% size."

 

"The original 24-70 is a "reverse zoom".  When the lens is extended it's 24mm.  When it's fully retracted it's 70mm.  A reverse zoom has an advantage when being used with a lens hood since the hood stays in place but the lens pulls back as you zoom in (but that's when the angle of view is narrower).   You'll notice the hood on the version II is much shallower -- it's designed to work at the 24mm end but that means the hood is not providing much help at the 70mm end."

James Crockett wrote in post #18446280
I have a 135l f2 100mm macro and the 35mm sigma 1.4 art. I've thought about selling the sigma and get the 24-70 2.8...

I enjoy hypothetical stuff. Let me share my facet.

My shooting is half portraits, lots of forest, and a few weddings. If I happened to have the same lenses you just wrote, and needed to make a choice, this is what I would end up with when all was said and done:

1. 100mm macro (L)
2. 35mm 1.3 Art
3. Canon 24-70mm 2.8

I love my 135mm but given these options, would sell the 135mm and use a 100mm macro for long portrait and macro. Then the 24-70mm would give versatility on top of wider angle I need for forest, ocean, groups, etc.. And the 35mm art would provide one fast prime.

Sell the 135L, the 100L and the Sigma 35 1.4

and

Buy the new Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VC and the new Tamron 70-200 F2.8 VC

If you are hand-holding / non-tripod shooting portraits, these two lenses will give you better usable sharpness than your current 3 lenses and also better usable sharpness than the Canon 24-70 F2.8 II (that doesn't have IS / VC).

I give the above feedback as a wedding pro that owns the Canon 24-70 F2.8 II and will only use it on my 1DXii as it is useless on my 5DSR as it doesn't have IS. The new Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VC has better edge to edge sharpness than the new Sigma 24-70 F2.8 and with its VC, basically makes it a better lens than the equivalent Canon that doesn't have IS - and it is cheaper.

This Tamron zoom pair also covers my personal portrait focal lengths (50, 85, 125, 200) - and can be done all day long tack sharp at 1/60-1/100 (and the Tamron 70-200 isn't white so will be less noticeable than the big white Canon).

I have been very happy with my Tamron Primes (45 & 85 1.8 VC) and these are my main primes when not using my Canon 24-70 F2.8 II and Canon 70-200 F2.8 II IS.

This may sound crazy to some but I have actually been looking to swap my Canon 24-70 F2.8 II for the new Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VC - just looking for the right swap price, as I place enormous value of handholding and want the IS.

24-70mm, much more versatile for me. I know some people can get by with one prime, and I even had to for a year or so way back...but for me 35 just isn't my fave focal length.