Portrait Lens

Associate
Joined
2 Jan 2004
Posts
1,866
Location
Exeter, Devon
Hey guys,

About to branch out into portrait work. I already do a limited amount of event/commission work, and until now a combination of 28-135 IS and the Nifty Fifty has got me by. However, I've reached a point where I feel investing in some glass better suited to portrait (and wedding) jobs is a less of a good idea, and more of a requirement. Ideally, I'd quite like a mid-range zoom over a prime, so as it can also double as a walkabout lens for day to day work on my 50D and 350D backup.
So far I've shortlisted (in ascending order):
-Sigma 24-70 f/2.8
-Sigma 24-70 HSM f/2.8
-Canon 24-105 L f/4
Sadly, the 24-70L f/2.8 is out of my reach, and really the 24-105 is pushing it - though the f/2.8 Sigma offerings are better suited to the job in hand anyway. I guess my question should really be
1. is the more expensive 24-70 worth the extra ~£300?
and
2. Alternatives?!

Cheers in advance.
 
Caporegime
Joined
20 Oct 2002
Posts
70,152
Location
Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
Canon 85/1.8 for pure portraits

otherwise if you can't get the Canon 24-70 then get the Sigma, 2.8 is nicer than F/4 on portraits, and IS won't help you when shooting moving subjects...which people do a lot at weddings.

So, you could get a 85/1.8 plus the Sigma 24-70 for £500ish all in.
 
Associate
OP
Joined
2 Jan 2004
Posts
1,866
Location
Exeter, Devon
Thanks Raymond - very thought provoking reply!* I can't find anywhere selling the Sigma 24-70's for much less than £500 and £800 respectively though =(

*However, you've made me think.
Also in my shopping basket is a Sigma 120-400, ~£600 worth of cheerful tele. Together with £800 for the 24-70 Sigma, that takes my total budget to the £1400 ballpark.
Now, obviously the 70-200 f/4 L isn't entirely comparable to the 120-400, but it would be better than what I have right now (nothing), and (important bit) the cash saved there would be I could stretch to either the 24-70 f/2.8 L.

Aside from the fact that two L lenses being delivered together would make me embarassingly giddy (and would jolly nice next to my 17-40L), would you agree that's a better use of the budget?
 
Soldato
Joined
20 Mar 2006
Posts
8,089
Location
The Lakes
Yep, totally worth it! Super sharp and very fast focussing.

I find the 50mm f/1.4 good enough for portraits on a crop sensor too.

gt
 
Caporegime
Joined
20 Oct 2002
Posts
70,152
Location
Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
Thanks Raymond - very thought provoking reply!* I can't find anywhere selling the Sigma 24-70's for much less than £500 and £800 respectively though =(

*However, you've made me think.
Also in my shopping basket is a Sigma 120-400, ~£600 worth of cheerful tele. Together with £800 for the 24-70 Sigma, that takes my total budget to the £1400 ballpark.
Now, obviously the 70-200 f/4 L isn't entirely comparable to the 120-400, but it would be better than what I have right now (nothing), and (important bit) the cash saved there would be I could stretch to either the 24-70 f/2.8 L.

Aside from the fact that two L lenses being delivered together would make me embarassingly giddy (and would jolly nice next to my 17-40L), would you agree that's a better use of the budget?

What will you be doing with the 120-400? That will be useless for portraits and weddings. It is not a midrange zoom as you wanted.
 
Associate
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Posts
1,940
Well I don't knwo where youre looking at the sigmas but I have them penned down in my notepad at £350 and £750.

I can't really comment much more here because I'm in a similar postition looking for a walkabout & willife tele. Similar budget.

Perhaps a Sigma 70-200 2.8 would make a good portrait lens for you and free up some cash for a 'brick' or a 120-400. Just a thought I have jotted down ATM.
 
Soldato
Joined
28 Dec 2003
Posts
15,610
Surely 85mm is going to be a bit long on a crop for portraiture?

If there are plans to go FF in the near future then probably worth going 85mm and "living" with it on the crop for now, otherwise maybe the 50mm f/1.4 would better suit?
 
Caporegime
Joined
20 Oct 2002
Posts
70,152
Location
Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
Surely 85mm is going to be a bit long on a crop for portraiture?

If there are plans to go FF in the near future then probably worth going 85mm and "living" with it on the crop for now, otherwise maybe the 50mm f/1.4 would better suit?

Depends, if you consider FF, the perfect portraiture lens is between 85 or 135. Considering the OP already has a 50mm, then the alternative is the 85.

Basically, generally speaking.

on FF

85 for wraist and up.
135 for shoulder & Head
 
Associate
OP
Joined
2 Jan 2004
Posts
1,866
Location
Exeter, Devon
Bump for update.

The lovely chaps at my local camera store renewed their lovelyness by offering me the 24-105L IS at a price I was unable to resist, and making the price difference between it and the 24-70 f/2.8 too hard to justify right now. Plus, the additional range of the 24-105 means I can safely sell on my 28-135 IS to recoup more of the cost.

As for the tele, the 70-200L just isn't going to be long enough for me. I'm gonna mull it over for a few weeks, but either the Sigma 120-400 or a 70-200 f/2.8+2xteleconverter are the probably contenders.
 
Soldato
Joined
1 Oct 2008
Posts
11,942
Location
Glebe Park
There was a user called Trifid selling a Sigma 120 - 300 f2.8 on here last month. Possibly worth a look to see if its available?
 
Top Bottom