Slightly off topic, but I've found the RF 28-70 and RF 50 when both shot at f/2 near MFD have identical bokeh character. When choosing between the 24-70 vs 28-70, I also try to encourage people to consider 15-35 / 50 / 70-200 and forget the standard zoom altogether. Once you have the 15-35 and 70-200, you really only are missing 40-65.
The Comparison: Canon vs Tamron. Canon’s EF 24-70 f/2.8L II USM has been hailed as the sharpest lens of its type, but it has no image-stabilization, and it carries a hefty price tag at $2049. On the other hand, Tamron’s new 24-70 f/2.8 VC USD does have image stabilization, but the company’s optics only occasionally match the standardsThanks for your elaborate answer. These are the lenses I currently have: Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/4-5.6 IS II (kit lens) Canon EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 Di Macro 1:1 VC USD I am using a Canon 750D (Rebel T6i), so I am looking forward to upgrading to fullframe.3. RF 24-105mm f4 L IS USM. The RF 50mm f1.2 and RF 85mm f1.2 would do the heavy lifting, while the RF 24-105mm f4 would give me some flexibility with focal length when necessary. Alternatively, I could remove the RF 24-105mm f4 (and perhaps the RF 50mm f1.2), and replace it with the RF 28-70mm f2 USM L. L’autofocus. Le système AF du 24-105 s’en sort très bien, mais il a toujours un peu de pompage alors que le 24-70 n’hésite jamais. Si vous voulez un objectif plus haut de gamme, vous allez trouver votre compte avec le 24-70mm f2.8 : meilleur piqué, plus de contraste et moins de défauts optiques. En revanche, le RF 24-105 mm f4 est mhOcE8.