Originally Posted by Artikbot
The lack of IS on wide angles or even short teles doesn't really bother me to be honest. Hand-holding a 70mm at 1/25 isn't the end of the world unless you're running and gunning.
So from that perspective, the 24-70 isn't too bad. But I simply cannot justify what Canon asks for it.
The higher the resolution of your sensor and the resolving power of your lens, the more obvious camera shake becomes.
Again, what is "acceptably good" varies greatly from person to person, but even 1/125s is iffy for tack sharp results @ 70mm FOV, and subject movement will be an issue, unless it is a posed portrait where people are trying to remain still.
The EF 24-70 f/2.8 II is better to keep shutter speeds up, the EF 24-70 f/4 IS is better if you care for total low-light capabilities as the IS accounts for far more than a single stop of extra light.
The EF 24-70 f/2.8 II is expensive, but still relatively competitive with all equivalents:
Tamron SP 24-70mm Di VC - $1,300
Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II - $1,800
Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G ED - $1,800
Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8E ED VR - $2,400
Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM - $2,150
The Sony is the latest in this class and the only that comes close to the 24-70 II performance. One slightly edging the wide end, the other the long end. Both are BIG and EXPENSIVE. Note that the latter is true for the Nikons too, only those perform worse, and even after the price reduction for the non-VR variant, this is disappointing for a company that over and over and over gets praised about their optics by die-hard Nikonians. Seems like a one-way love.
It is also worth noting that the 24-70 II is available as a refurbished product with full warranty directly from Canon USA (sorry, don't follow other regions) for the price of the Tamron. You can also buy any of the above used for a much better price (I bought mine used, but refurb with 1y warranty and the right to return would be the same $ roughly).