It is worth mentioning that the initial price has probably influenced the stern look that has strayed the lens. For 1200 - or more I would not have bought it. Effectively after cashback you pay now about 800, -, is what a still high but realistic.
A wide-angle, a lightweight telephoto, a macro, an image stabilizer and in a compact, small, fine and somehow sweet-fat housing (1.5 shorter than the 24-105mm) in a. Perfect for me. The colors are very well already without editing.
If necessary, I'm going to post-editing again, so far I am very satisfied.
The weight is 600g with about the same level of a high-intensity fixed focal length like the 35mm 1.4 purchased from Sigma (which is 70g heavier than the 24-70 f4)
the headline is somewhat misleading - 600g but remains just not enough. But significantly less than in the other (Tamron 800g / 2.8 II Canon 800g / 2.8 I 900g 24-105 670g)
Whether I the 24-70mm 2.8 II would have taken the same price? Probably yes. But there is only one mill. You should be able to melt in your mouth, that the 24-70 2.8 II by Cashback 800, - costs more. Who needs the aperture and outstanding / something slightly better BQ of 2.8er which is already know and which will then also the higher price be worth it, especially if it is used as a working tool and is irreplaceable. I do not need the 2.8. So far, anyway. And although I have been photographing moving objects. If the motive is right, even ISO 6400 are totally ok on a film camera. Not optimal, but it is completely ok. Come back on the purpose.
For Bokehspielereien I have a 50mm 1.2 - I would never give up.
Taking pictures with zoom is another. You play back more rum. That's the beauty of it.