Please help me decide on lens

Guyz,

I wanna sell my canon50mm f/1.4 and sigma 17-50mm os hsm to FUND the canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM.

I can fill-up the price difference. My concern is the lens itself. Is it worth giving up my nifty-fifty and sigma 17-50os for the 24-105L lens? Image quality and IQ wise?

Is the L lens good for portraiture too?

thanks.

vinz

Does the added range offset the loss of being able to shoot at 2.8? Curious why you'd keep the 18-270 over the 2 you are mentioning which are better lenses?

ct1co2 wrote in post #12887943
Does the added range offset the loss of being able to shoot at 2.8? Curious why you'd keep the 18-270 over the 2 you are mentioning which are better lenses?

on 18-270 -- because i need the range sometimes for stolen shots at parties, to catch moments without being notice especially with the 60D's vari-angle LCD.

that's the cons on 24-105L, it's only F/4 while the sigma is 2.8 plus wider on the wide end.

let me check image quality difference on my sigma compared to the 24-105L.

thanks.

Like a lot of lens choices it comes down to what you shoot. I have the 24-105 and I think it's a great lens and it will work for portraits as long as you're not trying to blur the mess out of the background. That being said, I'm not sure I would give up an f/2.8 zoom and a fast prime for it, but that's me. If you don't find yourself using those apertures much then I would guess the 24-105 would be fine. Just be sure that giving up two faster lenses isn't going to leave you wishing you hadn't.

vinmunoz wrote in post #12887846
Guyz,

I wanna sell my canon50mm f/1.4 and sigma 17-50mm os hsm to FUND the canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM.

I can fill-up the price difference. My concern is the lens itself. Is it worth giving up my nifty-fifty and sigma 17-50os for the 24-105L lens? Image quality and IQ wise?

Is the L lens good for portraiture too?

thanks.

vinz

I thought nifty fifty was 50mm f1.8.

yourdoinitwrong wrote in post #12888141
Like a lot of lens choices it comes down to what you shoot. I have the 24-105 and I think it's a great lens and it will work for portraits as long as you're not trying to blur the mess out of the background. That being said, I'm not sure I would give up an f/2.8 zoom and a fast prime for it, but that's me. If you don't find yourself using those apertures much then I would guess the 24-105 would be fine. Just be sure that giving up two faster lenses isn't going to leave you wishing you hadn't.

thanks... i'm going to consider your point.

this pics was taken by my sigma

HTTP response: 400 | MIME changed to 'text/html'

I will get the 24-70mm f/2.8 over the 24-105mm.

I wouldn't. Having 17mm on the wide end alone is more important to me than having 105mm on the long end, so having both 17mm on the wide end and a fast prime...

Plus, the IQ won't be much of an improvement if any. At the edge of the frame yes, but centre frame? I doubt you'll see any difference whatsoever.