The 24-70mm f/2.8 has been the default first professional lens purchase for at least 25 years. Almost every working photographer has owned one. Every photography forum recommends one to every newcomer asking what to buy after the kit lens. Every wedding educator names it as the foundation of a working kit. Every camera store stocks it at eye level. The lens has been so culturally dominant within working photography that the question of whether it should still be the default has rarely been asked seriously. It should be asked now.
The 24-70mm f/2.8 made sense as the default in a market where the alternatives were either substantially worse (variable-aperture kit zooms) or substantially more limited (primes that required a bag full of glass to cover the same range). That market does not exist anymore. The 2024-2026 wave of zoom releases has produced a set of credible alternatives that did not exist five years ago, and the working photographers who default to the Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM II, Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM, or Nikon Z 24-70mm f/2.8 S out of habit are increasingly buying the wrong lens for their actual use case.
The argument is not that the 24-70mm f/2.8 is a bad lens. The argument is that "default first zoom" should not be a single answer anymore, because working photographers are not a single category. A wedding photographer, a travel photographer, a commercial portrait photographer, and a working photojournalist all have meaningfully different needs, and the lens that genuinely serves their first zoom slot best is increasingly different from photographer to photographer.
What the 24-70mm f/2.8 Was Always Trading Off
The 24-70mm f/2.8's dominance was always built on a specific compromise. The lens covers a versatile focal range with a fast aperture in a single body, and accepts the consequences: substantial weight, substantial price, and a focal range that is genuinely useful at 24mm wide and at 70mm short-tele but somewhat compromised at both extremes. A 24-70mm lens at 24mm is wider than most working portrait situations need and narrower than most working architectural situations need. At 70mm it is short for separation portraiture and long for environmental coverage. The lens is good at everything in the middle and not exceptional at anything.
This was a reasonable trade-off in 2005. By 2026, four genuinely different alternatives exist that serve specific photographer profiles better than the 24-70mm f/2.8 does, and working photographers who default to the f/2.8 zoom without considering the alternatives are paying for versatility they do not always need.
The 24-105mm f/4 Argument for Travel and Generalist Working Photographers
The first alternative is the 24-105mm f/4 standard zoom. Sony, Canon, and Nikon all make versions of this lens at roughly $1,200, with some price variation by mount. The Sony FE 24-105mm f/4 G OSS, Canon RF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM, and Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 S are the relevant options across the three major full frame mounts. The lens trades the f/2.8 aperture for an extra 35mm of telephoto reach, lower weight, and a substantially lower price.
For travel photographers and generalist working photographers, this trade is increasingly the right one. The 105mm long end covers genuine portrait compression and tighter detail work, where the 70mm end of the f/2.8 zoom forces the photographer to either crop or carry a second lens. Modern sensors handle the high-ISO performance gap between f/4 and f/2.8 well enough that the aperture difference matters less in practice than it did a decade ago. A working travel photographer carrying a 24-105mm f/4 instead of a 24-70mm f/2.8 saves roughly 300 grams of weight, gains 35mm of telephoto reach, and pays substantially less for the lens. The only working scenarios where the f/2.8 wins decisively are heavily controlled-light situations and shallow-depth-of-field portrait work, neither of which describes most travel photography.
For working photographers whose primary use case is travel, editorial, environmental portrait, or generalist commercial work, the 24-105mm f/4 is now the better default purchase. The 24-70mm f/2.8 makes more sense as a second lens added later for the specific situations where the aperture matters. The order of operations has flipped, and most photographers buying their first serious zoom in 2026 should buy the f/4 first.
The 28-70mm f/2 Argument for Wedding and Event Working Photographers
The second alternative is the constant f/2 zoom. The Sony FE 28-70mm f/2 GM, released in late 2024 at $2,899-$3,299, opened a category that the Canon RF 28-70mm f/2L USM had previously occupied alone. The lens trades 4mm at the wide end and adds a substantial price premium in exchange for a full stop of additional aperture across the entire zoom range, plus optical performance that genuinely competes with prime lenses.
For wedding and event photographers shooting in low-light reception spaces, dimly-lit ceremonies, and dance floors where flash work is restricted or unwelcome, the f/2 zoom changes the calculation about what a primary lens can do. A wedding photographer working a reception at f/2 has a full stop of margin over the f/2.8 photographer. That margin shows up in a lower ISO, a higher shutter speed, or both. Across a full wedding day with thousands of frames in difficult light, the cumulative quality difference is real and visible.
The f/2 zoom also functions as a legitimate prime substitute. A working wedding photographer who would otherwise carry a 35mm f/1.4 and an 85mm f/1.4 alongside their zoom can replace both primes with the single f/2 zoom and accept a one-stop loss in maximum aperture in exchange for the focal range flexibility. For shooters who value coverage over absolute speed at any single focal length, the math works.
The honest counterweight is the price and the weight. The Sony 28-70mm f/2 GM is roughly $3,000, weighs 918 grams, and uses 86mm filters. This is a working-pro purchase, not a starter zoom. The argument is not that every wedding photographer should buy this lens, but that wedding photographers buying their first f/2.8 zoom should consider whether the f/2 alternative serves their work better, and many of them will conclude that it does.
The 35-100mm f/2.8 Argument for Portrait and Editorial Photographers
The third alternative is the most recent, and the most strategically interesting. Tamron released the 35-100mm f/2.8 Di III VXD in March 2026 for Sony E and Nikon Z, at $899 and $929 respectively. The lens covers 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, and 100mm, which Tamron correctly identifies as the four most-used focal lengths in portrait work. It weighs 565 grams. It maintains constant f/2.8. It does not cover the wide angle end, and that is the entire point.
For working portrait photographers, fashion shooters, and editorial photographers, the 35-100mm range covers nearly everything they actually shoot. The 24-70mm f/2.8 lens these photographers have historically defaulted to does not get used wider than about 35mm in actual portrait work. The 24mm-to-35mm range is wider than flattering portrait framing and is rarely engaged. The premium portrait photographer who has been carrying a 24-70mm f/2.8 has been carrying weight, paying for optical complexity, and accepting an optical compromise to maintain a wide angle capability they almost never use.
The 35-100mm f/2.8 trades that unused wide end for an extra 30mm of telephoto reach at the long end, where portrait work actually wants to be. The 100mm long end covers the focal length most working portrait photographers consider their real "money" range, where compression flatters subjects and background separation becomes interesting. A working portrait photographer carrying a 35-100mm f/2.8 instead of a 24-70mm f/2.8 has a lens that better matches their actual shooting pattern, weighs substantially less, costs roughly half as much, and delivers more usable telephoto reach. There are even 35-150mm options now.
The honest limit is that the lens is not a generalist. A wedding photographer who needs to shoot a tight reception space, a real estate photographer who needs wide architectural coverage, or a travel photographer who wants a single zoom for everything will find the 35mm wide end limiting. That is fine. The 35-100mm f/2.8 is not pitched as a generalist zoom. It is pitched as a portrait specialist's first zoom, and for that specific working photographer, it is meaningfully better than the 24-70mm f/2.8 default. For working portrait and editorial photographers thinking through the broader question of how to build a portrait practice that justifies premium pricing in 2026, Fashion and Editorial Portrait Photography by Clay Cook covers the lighting, posing, and creative direction that turn the right focal length into work clients actually pay for, which is the practical context where lens choice stops being abstract and starts being a working decision.
The Case Where the 24-70mm f/2.8 Is Still Correct
The argument that the 24-70mm f/2.8 should no longer be the default does not mean it is the wrong purchase for every working photographer. Three specific photographer profiles still find the 24-70mm f/2.8 to be the genuinely correct first zoom.
Working photojournalists who need to cover any situation that develops in front of them, including fast-moving news, environmental context, and tighter detail work in a single zoom range, are still served best by the 24-70mm f/2.8. The lens's combination of sufficient wide angle coverage and sufficient short-telephoto reach makes it the right default for a working photographer whose subject matter is unpredictable.
Real estate and commercial interior photographers who need to handle wide angle architectural coverage and tighter detail shots in the same lens benefit from the 24mm wide end specifically. The architectural use case is where the wide angle reach actually pays off, and the 24-70mm f/2.8 remains the single-lens solution for working photographers in that genre.
Wedding photographers who shoot in venues where they cannot move freely (compact venues, religious ceremonies with photographer-position restrictions, tight reception halls with crowded floors) need the 24mm wide end to capture environmental context that they cannot back up to frame. For these working photographers, the wide angle end of the 24-70mm f/2.8 is not theoretical; it is being used regularly.
These three profiles are real, and the 24-70mm f/2.8 is the correct default purchase for them. The argument is that they are not the entire working-photography market, and they have not been since at least 2020. Treating the 24-70mm f/2.8 as the universal first zoom recommendation flattens what is now a much more differentiated market into a single answer, and the photographers who would be better served by one of the alternatives are quietly buying the wrong lens because the cultural default has not updated.
What Should Happen Next
The advice that working photographers should be giving each other in 2026 is not "buy the 24-70mm f/2.8." The advice should be a single question: what kind of photographer are you, and what kind of photography do you actually do? The follow-up answers depend on the response.
Travel, landscape, or generalist working photographer: 24-105mm f/4. Cheaper, lighter, more reach, and the aperture difference is mostly theoretical for the use case. The 24-70mm f/2.8 can be a second lens added later if specific needs justify it.
Wedding or event photographer working in low-light conditions: consider the 28-70mm f/2 if budget allows, because the aperture margin is meaningful and compounds across the work. If budget does not allow, the 24-70mm f/2.8 is still a reasonable choice, but the f/2 alternative should be on the consideration list rather than dismissed reflexively.
Portrait, fashion, or editorial photographer: 35-100mm f/2.8. The focal range matches actual portrait work, the weight is half, and the price is half. The 24-70mm f/2.8 is the wrong default for this working photographer profile, full stop.
Photojournalist, real estate photographer, or wedding photographer working in tight spaces: 24-70mm f/2.8 is still correct. Buy it.
This is a more complicated answer than the photography press has been giving for two decades, and it is the right answer for 2026. The single-default era is over. The photographers who pay attention to that shift will buy lenses that serve their actual work. The photographers who keep buying the 24-70mm f/2.8 because it is what they have always bought will keep ending up with versatile, capable, expensive lenses that do not fit their use case as well as the alternatives now available do. For working wedding photographers in particular, where the reception-photography reality has changed substantially with the f/2 zoom alternatives, How to Become a Professional Commercial Wedding Photographer covers the lens-and-coverage decisions that working photographers actually face on shoot days, where the abstract question of "which zoom" becomes the practical question of "which lens stays on which body for which part of the day."
The 24-70mm f/2.8 will remain a great lens. It will remain a working professional's tool. It will remain in working photographers' bags for a long time. What it should stop being is the answer everyone gives without asking the question first.
26 Comments
"Modern sensors handle the high-ISO performance gap between f/4 and f/2.8 well enough that the aperture difference matters less in practice than it did a decade ago".
Add to that the incredible AI noise reduction software now available.
Been a working photographer for 40 years. Have never owned a 24-70, the 17-35 2.8 is superior IMO. Especially for newspaper photogs and I'd argue landscape photogs in many situations. As a newspaper photog, a 17-35 on one body and a 70-200 2.8 on another body, sitting in the passenger seat of my car (yes, studio photgs go ahead and cringe) But many newspaper shooters can relate I bet. I miss those days.
spot on.
Good coverage of alternatives, but here are two more. Samyang is working on a 28-85/2.0-2.8 and a 28-135/2.8. I can't wait to get one or both for event work, walkabout and travel.
The 35-150/2.0-2.8 is a great event lens, but the weight and 35mm starting point make it less than ideal as a solo general use lens. I use one, alongside a 20-40/2.8, for event work, but it'll be replaced with the 28-135 when that becomes available, reportedly sometime next year, mainly because it can serve as a solo lens on a single body for travel and for certain event uses. The 28-75/2.8 I purchased recently as a stop-gap solo zoom will be replaced by the 28-85 for similar reasons.
What makes you think a 28-135 will be smaller than a 35-150 both being f2.8 unless there are other optical sacrifices also.
Well, the 35-150 starts at f2.0, whereas the 28-135 is a constant f2.8 and has a shorter max focal length. Also, it looks a bit smaller in the photos I've seen, so I'm guessing around 1100g instead of 1300g. But, also, even if it's heavy, the zoom range is more suited to solo use, whereas the 35-150 really needs a wider lens to complement it.
That said, you raise a good point - 1kg is still heavy for carrying around on foot all day, which is why I had hoped Samyang would make a smaller 28-135/2.8-4.0 instead. Maybe Tamron will do it? If they'd made a 28-100/2.8 instead of the new 35-100/2.8, I'd have bought one in an instant. In any case, I find the 28-85 very appealing, so if it's a bit smaller and lighter than the 28-135, I may get both.
I bought a Canon 24-105 F4 easily 20 years ago as my first lens purchase. Honestly - as far as photography-equipment purchases go - that was my best by far. I still own it, still use it regularly, and probably will never sell it until it really is time to stop taking photos altogether. My best “walking around” lens, my go to lens for long exposure. Just a really good piece of kit.
Your not alone. The EF 24-105 L was my 1st choice lens when I purchased a 5D DSLR many years ago. When I eventually went mirrorless the RF 24-105 L the 1st lens. BUT, if I change again to a camera that can use 3rd party lenses (like Sony), based on my shooting habits, the Tamron 25-200 F2.8-5.6 looks very tempting.
Same here. I have had the EF24_105L for years on my 5Dmk2 and still use if with the adapter on my R7.
I'm genuinely shocked that none of the 28-70mm f/2.8 lenses came up for a mention. Sacrificing 4mm at the wide end for a lens that's less than half the price of the 24-70 is frequently a no-brainer. The Canon 28-70mm f/2.8 just doesn't lose all that much in terms of performance (for modern lenses, "sharp" is just table stakes) unless you truly need the USM, at less than half the cost.
I agree with the comments made regarding how improvements in camera and software technology make f/4 lenses more than just suitable. On that basis, another choice for a first lens for travel and general photography is Sony's 20-70 f/4. Smaller and lighter than the 24-105 with slightly better image quality. You can easily crop in these days to gain more reach, but you can't really crop out to expand on the wide end. The Sony 20-70 f/4 has proven to be an excellent only lens I need.
I agree. The 20mm viewing angle of the Sony 20-70G lens delivers an ideal field of view for shooting stunning landscape scenes.
All the arguments point to the 24-70 f2.8 being the ideal middle ground.
On apsc I've had the sigma 17-40 1.8, and a 16-80 f4.
There in the middle is the 16-55 2.8 that is lighter than the 1.8 zoom with more range, yet faster than the f4 with better IQ and the option for of and faster aperture.
I'd rather pair a 16-55 2.8 with a 50-100 1.8 where the faster aperture can be more impactful.
It's nice to have options, but I think in many ways it is driven by lens manufacturers looking for more niches to make you consider repurchasing lenses that do pretty much the same as what you already have and you quickly won't notice.
Actualy I have problems choosing between 24-105 and 35-100 alternatives and then when I remember I have a 28-75 I kind of think that is a good middle way. That is a good starting point.
the new 35-100 is tempting to have for portraits. Perfect.
If you get the 35-100, you can swap your 28-75 for a 20-40. I use a 20-40 alongside my 35-150 for event work. Nice combo.
Starting with a click bait headline when you could have just said, "depending on what you shoot, use this lens instead" No, the 24-70 f/2.8 is not the best choice for EVERYONE, but some get it because it is more affordable than the one they actually want and they trade up later
That's an interesting perspective because I think that very few lenses are less affordable than the 24-70 2.8 until you start getting into high-end telephoto, which the 24-70 will never replace to begin with.
Canon, for example, only has 11 RF lenses more expensive than the 24-70 2.8, and only 5 of those fall into similar working ranges to the 24-70 2.8.
I am hearing the most about f/# than MM's. In 2013 Sony came out with a mirrorless full frame then in 2014 the ever powerful IBIS great for prims that do not have OSS/IS. Not till around 2017 did Canon and Nikon go mirrorless and that forced all their followers to toss all camera and lenses to go that way.
When now everyone is a mirrorless user with way better sensors and built in options like auto ISO where the highest is selectable per model as highest, ISO Invariance allowing for a lower ISO yes a dark image but in post increasing just exposure getting less noise and a bright image and decreasing shadows getting detail in the darkest of places.
What all the crying for that f/1.2 or even less is the fact that the pros do not edit and have no idea what the results will be just trying to get on the camera LCD what they see. Like being stuck in the film days where low f/#'s were lenses and cameras could be hand held and in lowlight knowing flash setting was the norm.
Today Telephoto lenses have OSS/IS and believe it or not new mirrorless has IBIS, yes and the both together allow for slower SS's almost to one second. And if you are old enough to remember the HDR days and not worrying about the camera NR being disabled below one second you can hand hold a 5 at +/-2EV HDR capture and with your new mirrorless camera with 5 or more steps of dynamic range those 5 images when merged with also movement of subject ghosting also corrected in todays editing software, I have to ask what is all the crying for a faster lens, OH! The bokeh, yes also able to get in post with editing software.
Now for tour crying for MM range, forget about f/# for an hour or so, like a gun today we are not limited with old six shooter today we have lots of bullets and also lenses that can go from what is called wide to supper narrow. So just take your pick, not looking at f/#, just ask what do I use the most from this to that then get one.
In My beginnings with Sony there were few choices but yes was a 35mm. but the next year 2015 the FE 24-240mm thinking the old 10x lenses of old in all the magazines of old. Then when Tray Ratciff did a review of the E 10-18mm (15-27mmm in 35mm) f/4 OSS that he showed it could be used in Full Frame at 12mm he was a landscape image capturer and all that was available were fisheye that required more work. Sony did not come out with the 12-24mm with no IS/OSS till 2017. Having one in 2015 was like decades ahead of any one.
The FE 24-240mm can also be used for 36-360 if used in APS-C, yes you have a button for that and also great for it uses the center of the full frame sensor using the best/most pixels for AF and color and in post just pick a image editor today you have upsize. All this and OSS/IS and front threads for a filter/'s of desire.
Add the E 10-18mm f/4 OSS not only in APS-c 15- 27mm but Full Frame 12-18mm (if you remove the rear light shield and mark the 12mm and 18mm points.
With just two lenses in your photo vest or tears drop over the shoulder bag with two pockets you can have two small mirrorless cameras with both lenses handy for anything.
All that needs to be done is a little time with an image editor to learn the possibilities of a end image your mind can see not just what is on the rear of the camera, a fact many forget or do not know that image you r are seeing on the rear LCD is a JPEG not a highly editable image even the histogram is of the Jpeg, just info!
The one must have lens is the Sony FE 200-600mm and using the 2x Teleconverter APS-C mode you get 1800mm capturing the moon full in frame BUT stay at 1200 for the stars add to the story and not cut and past look! The 150-600 requires and adapter and using a teleconverter Metadata is wrong things learned to help others!
1. How Sharp is a lens in APS-C at 360mm of a bird with eye AF of egret some distance away no cropping. Could of but close enough for a good frame
2. HDR 3 at +/- 2EV hand held at 12mm at Antelope Canyon night with stars above lit with LED lantern at daylight white. While on my back looking up.
3. A sunset at 12mm hand held bracketed 5 at +/- 2EV f/4 lens
4. Wedding ring solar eclipse using the 24-240mm for adjustable close and other captures you only have a seconds and hand held on my back looking straight up got a 100+ images in just a few minutes only 150 miles from home never that close again and impossible to do with the tripod I had. When things just happen needing to be ready with a 2015 lens! help did not use the Solar Lens filter no lens damage because shutter no open long enough and no aperture blades burned moving too much just help info for you.
Canon had the best selling mirrorless system in the world from 2012-2020. It's called EOS M. No, it was not full frame. But at the time, FF cameras only made up about 15% of the global ILC market. The idea that Canon did not "go mirrorless" until 2018 is ludicrous.
"Pros do not edit?"
That all depends upon the pro and what type of work they are doing. Sports and hard news photogs do not edit because if they don't get the photo on the wires within 5-10 minutes after it happened someone else will have beaten them to the punch. Fashion, product, commercial, portrait, wedding, architectural, etc. (in other words, where the actual money is) all edit the snot out of everything they publish.
The article says "and an 85mm f/1.4 alongside their zoom can replace both primes with the single f/2 zoom and accept a one-third stop loss" which is wrong. From 1.4 to 2.0 is one full stop, not one-third.
Oops, thank you. I swapped out my examples and forgot to update that figure.
I replaced my Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM with the Canon RF 24-105mm f/2.8L IS USM Z. Problem solved.
"Wedding or event photographer working in low-light conditions: consider the 28-70mm f/2 if budget allows, because the aperture margin is meaningful and compounds across the work. If budget does not allow, the 24-70mm f/2.8 is still a reasonable choice"
As an event shooter, I have a different take on this. First, I'm using more than one camera. It would be professional negligence NOT to. So, it's worth considering any zoom lens choice as half of a pair. In this context, I've never found 24-70 or 28-75 compelling, because I'd have to match it with a longer lens AND a wider lens. In contrast, a 17-28 or 20-40 paired with a 35-150 or Samyang's forthcoming 28-135/2.8 can pretty much do it all. When the light gets really low, I have brighter 24, 35 and 85 primes in the bag. Sometimes a 135/1.8, too. And a 14/4 for room shots.
For travel I went the opposite direction. 20-70mm f/4 G. This allows me to go wide enough to handle building interiors and for taking panoramic cityscapes.
I never miss having more reach because while I don’t deny having the extra 35mm could be useful, I have a 70-200mm lens that is far more useful for the very few times I need that.
It is also a very light lens - 488g.