Portrait Lens

neverender · 1 Oct 2009 at 22:25

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.

neverender · 1 Oct 2009 at 22:47

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?

neverender · 2 Oct 2009 at 11:05

The 120-400/70-200 will be for light wildlife work and to add to my landscape collection.

neverender · 5 Oct 2009 at 16:11

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.