is a none L lens ok for glamour

would a magazine accept a glamour photo that was shot with a none L lens. i am getting a sigma 17/70 f2.8/f4 and the reviews are good for this lens, but is it good enough for glamour shots.

A magazine isn't going to know what lens a photo was shot with.
Providing it is sharp enough, and the resulting image file is an appropriate size they will use it.

thanks for the info

A magazine, or any client, doesn't ever ask what lens you used. If you're embarrassed, lie. If you're embarrassed of the quality, get a better lens. Not knowing if you're you're using a full frame or not, the 85 1.8 is a great lens for not being L. Thats maybe the shortest FL you want (on full frame for fashion), but I'm using the 50 1.2L these days for nudes. (My Zeiss 50 ƒ2 and 100 ƒ2 are too sharp!)

After I wrote that, I'm thinking the sigma is a crop body lens, being that it starts at 17mm. You might want a faster lens for glamour. 2.8 is maybe the minimum, but the sigma is only 2.8 at 17mm, which is probably much too wide for glamour. On a 1.6 crop body, you'll want no less than 50mm.

...exif

i have a 135L but i don't have room to get a full body shot. so thought i would get the sigma. also the 135 is to sharp every detail is showing so lots of pp to hide it

there is no such thing as too sharp in terms of in camera images..

the skin is showing to much detail with the 135L and it takes a long time pp to smoth the skin.
so thought about using the sigma 17/ 70 i think it will give enough sharpness and less time removing all the blemishes on the skin

chances are that's more a problem with your lighting than sharpness, harsh, poorly placed light highlights ugly details.

no my lighting is good, when i do close up head shots yo can see things that you would not notice with the naked eye.

well yes, but you want to sacrifice sharpness for a bit of PP? I don't know any portrait/lifestyle photographer who doesn't do some skin smoothing and blemish retouching in their professional work, I'd never sacrifice a crisp, sharp shot for a few less minutes in photoshop.

yes your right but it's a pain doing pp when you have taken loads of photo's

I can't speak for everyone, but one advice I learned from a pro a while back is that "you'd rather have too much detail [to work with] rather than not enough detail."

And providing the resolution and the quality/style of the image is adequate, I don't believe the lens itself matters.

I wept a little when I saw the thread title and read the first post.

Why would someone have to ask such a question?

I'm putting part of the blame on the people in the lens-section of POTN.

Shadow on the Door wrote in post #13408487
...exif

What about it? My photos don't have any exif information that gives anything away about the photo or what it was shot with or modes or software or anything - that is all stripped out.