Canon 24-70 mm 2.8 vs. Canon 24-105 mm 4.0

<p>Mark its just expensive. I can't justify keeping 24L, 50L, 24-70LII. </p>

<p>How does the 24-70 compare to primes at 2.8? Usually with primes I am stopping down a bit anyway but I would have a hard time parting with either lens.</p>

<p>On a side note the new Sigma 35 looks pretty amazing. I thought of splitting the difference and getting one to replace my 24/50 and then getting a 24-70 but taking my time since all these lenses are pretty new.</p>

At f/2.8 through f/8 the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II compares very well to the EF 24mm f/1.4L II, EF 28mm f/2.8 IS (IS on or

off), EF 35mm f/2 and EF 50mm f/1.4. Never been a fan of the EF50mm f/1.2L so I can't comment on it. I am shooting

with a 1Ds Mk III and 1D X.

I also shoot portraits and weddings and prefer my Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VR to both of those lenses. I shoot with Canon 5d

mark II. I seriously considered the Canon 24-70 f2.8 II however doing weddings now people expect video and pay extra

for it. So the VR at 24-70 for handheld video for me outweigh the extra sharpness of the new 24-70 II. For weddings the

2.8 is a must I also carry a 85 1.2L, 28 1.8, 50 1.4. Handheld with VR the Tamron is hard to beat At f2.8. If I were

shooting studio and using tripod I would love to have the new Canon but can't justify it because I can just shoot primes in

studio.