This lens has recently been replaced by Canon's new 24-70mm f/2.8 USM 'L' Mark ii - and so now you can find the original for a much more reasonable price. It has a silent focus motor built into the lens. Canon EF 300mm F2.8L IS II USM. Canon EF 500mm F/4L IS II USM. Lenses with built-in focus motor focus faster and more quietly than lenses without a focus motor which rely on the camera's body focus motor. minimum focus distance. The f/4 might well be "worth it" for you. I have owned both lenses but I ended up keeping just the f/4. At 200mm outdoor in daylight the quality is almost identical. At 70-100mm the f/2.8 is better if you compare side by side. In the 70 and 100 range there are other lenses with f/1.2, f/1.8 and f/2. Another is that the latest EF version of the 24-70 f/2.8 (the Mk II) can be had for about half the price of the RF version (where I am at least), so there's probably a good $1000 to be saved at the outset if they go with the EF Mk II. Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM (or perhaps a 16-35 f/4 or the new 24-105 is ii) Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM; Keep the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM due to f/1.4 which is occationally handy; I like this idea! Might be nice to keep the 100-400, but you could also just use a 2X Extender with the 70-200. My 70-200mm f/4 is a heck of a lot lighter. As for the optics, the 17-55mm does have very good optics, but the 24-70mm clearly outperforms it both wide open (f/2.8) and the sharpness covers more of the frame, with sharpness dropping off 15mm from the centre of the image, whereas the 17-55mm starts dropping sharpness immediately. Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS Vello ET-65B Lens Hood f/Canon LHC-ET65B Pearstone 58mm Snap-on Tulip Lens Hood 10042430 Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 Vello ET-65III Lens Hood f/Canon LHC-ET65III Pearstone 58mm Snap-on Tulip Lens Hood 10042430 Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro Vello ET-67 Lens Hood f/Canon LHC-ET67 67mm Snap-on Tulip Lens Hood (Version II The 24-70 is much better in my opinion because the focus is much faster and locks on. with consistant confidence, the 28-70 was very sharp from f4 , 3.5 was acceptable and 2.8. only if there was no option. The 24-70 is very sharp period. I am confident you would appreciate the difference with your level of skills. Costing $999, the Tokina 24-70mm f/2.8 isn’t cheap, but if it offers comparable image quality, it could represent great value compared to such own-brand options as the $1749 Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM or the $1797 Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G ED. We ran the Canon EF version of the Tokina 24-70mm f/2.8 though our industry-standard tests to see how ZJrL.

canon ef 24 70 f2 8 vs f4