24-70L versus... something

Apologies in advance for yet another lens choice thread! I've been thinking about this for weeks and need a little help.

My 350D died the week before last and I'm currently waiting on my insurance to come through and give me a nice cheque. If I get the full amount I'll be buying a gripped 40D, and then with some careful selling I hope to have a fair lump of money to spend on a nice lens.

My focus (no pun intended) is on looking at full-frame-compatible wide-standard lenses; I currently own a Sigma 17-70, and while I'm happy with it, I really do want f/2.8 as a constant, good build-quality, and some form of USM/HSM. I love wide-angle, but so far my mind seems to be 70% set on the 24-70L with the intention of buying either a Sigma or Tokina 12-24 later down the line in the summer.

I keep looking through reviews and the sample image archive on POTN, but am I making the right choice with the 24-70L? I'm mostly worried about the sharpness; weight and size are not really issues. (On a vain note: I really don't like Tamron, so any suggestions from them are out.)

I have considered the 16-35L II, but:

a.) I'd be hard-pushed to get the money for it (but it's do-able)
b.) I'm not sure that I can justify spending so much money on such a short focal range
c.) I would only have a 50 f/1.8 II between that and my 70-200

Another factor in all this is that there is a possibility I may be shooting a political conference later this year; I can't quite figure out what focal length (below 70mm) would be most useful!

This is an incredible amount of money for me, so as you can imagine I'm determined to get it right first time around. What're your thoughts?

Thanks!

Like I said, im willing to lend you my Sigma 24-70 and you will be very impressed with it. Only thing, no HSM but if you can stick with it until you go full frame, I say go for it. I still have to agree with your on Tamron lenses. :P

The Canon vers has been great but I cannot justify my need for any "L" series glass(I have no been hit by the L bug yet). I suppose there is the 24-105 f4L but that kind of steps on the 70-200.

Are you aware that the Tokina 12-24 is not fully full-frame compatible and doesn't use USM/HSM?

I'd never have any hesitation to recommend the 24-70L.

elysium wrote in post #5319852
Like I said, im willing to lend you my Sigma 24-70 and you will be very impressed with it. Only thing, no HSM but if you can stick with it until you go full frame, I say go for it. I still have to agree with your on Tamron lenses. :P

The Canon vers has been great but I cannot justify my need for any "L" series glass(I have no been hit by the L bug yet). I suppose there is the 24-105 f4L but that kind of steps on the 70-200.

I'd be interested to see how the Sigma does! As for the 24-105, it's a lovely bit of glass, but I don't think f/4 would cut it for me indoors.

Yep. The Sigma is my preference but if the Tokina retains it's value I wouldn't mind giving it a go (especially since it's a little bit cheaper and constant f/4), hehe.

I'll take that as one vote for the Sigma and one vote for the Canon!

Thanks for replying, guys.

You absolutely can't go wrong with the 24-70 though there seem to be periodic threads about "soft" copies. Mine is razor sharp and at 50 mm is literally as sharp as my 50 mm 1.4. I've also purchased my lenses with full frame in mind for the future (the "new" 5D maybe) and I think that's a wise consideration. If you aren't moving to full-frame soon, the 17-55 f/2.8 IS is supposed to be a superb lens but you'd have to sell it if you moved to full frame. I would have strongly considered it had it been available when I purchased my 24-70 just for the Image Stabilization feature.