Canon 24-70L f/2.8 II

Thanks for the reply. I initiated this discussion hoping to learn whether not having IS is an issue. Do you find that a problem on this model? Do you ever wish that you had IS? If so, how do you need to compensate for not having IS? Thanks

I do - for video. But for photo I'd rather have the sharper lens that can open up wide.

I, too, am a big fan of the 24-70 2.8II. It is a lens I have no qualms about using anytime. Primes in this focal length are basically no longer needed. I feel the same about the 70-200mm IS although that is a big lens. The 24-70mm is a very reasonable size for such a lens. I am not saying the IS is not useful, but I do not feel I need it for this lens. I do regard it as an asset for a 70-200mm. I have never used the 24-105mm, but I do much prefer the extra stop of the 24-70mm for blurring the background when in the standard and short tele range.

I have my old trusty 24-70/2.8 and I sold 24-105/4 IS , 24-70/2.8 is better in my opinion.

I had the older 28-80L f/2.8-4, which was a great lens, but I sold it when I decided I liked the extra reach of the 24-105. It's only a good lens, in my opinion, not great, but I kept bumping up against that 80mm maximum and the 24-105 solved that. I really prefer to compose tight images, rather than crop later.