What should I sell to get what?

Hey guys, I'd really appreciate some opinions on what I should do in my specific situation.

I currently own a t3i, Canon 85 1.8, and Canon 50 1.4.

I'm looking at the Canon 70-200L 2.8 non-IS (it's in my price range used), but I often find myself in need of a wider angle than 70mm (I had this problem a lot when the only lens I had was my 85), especially since I'm on a crop. I'll need to sell my 85 to afford the 70-200. I would also have to sell my 50 to be able to afford to get a wider lens to go along with the 70-200, but that is an option.

I'm afraid I'm going to miss the bokeh and dof that a smaller aperture gives...but I figure I could get a 50 1.8 later if I really feel like I need one.

I primarily shoot portraiture (models, fashion, senior shoots, family, pretty much everything), if that helps in forming your opinion.

I guess my questions are: Do you think you would be happy with the range for portraiture? Do you think that is a good lens choice to upgrade to (if no, what do you recommend?)? What affordable wider angled lens would pair well with the 70-200?

I realize that my questions are based greatly on personal choice, but that's what I'm looking for...opinions.

My price limit it 1k, and I'm looking to buy used.

Thanks for your time!

If you have to sell both of your lenses to get the 70-200 and a wider lens, and your budget is 1k, that actually leaves A LOT of options.

But first, let me clarify: the $1000 will be toward the wider lens that compliments your 70-200, right?

For the wider lens, I really recommend the Tamron 17-50, or the Sigma 17-50 OS. If your budget is $1000, I'm sure you can also squeeze in the Sigma 30mm or the Sigma 50mm also. That way, you have a nice zoom plus a wide aperture prime.

I've owned both the Tamron 17-50 and the Sigma 30mm. I chose to stay with the Tamron only because the zoom range was too useful and it was really sharp wide open.

I think he/she meant 1K as the total budget to buy the 70-200.

I don't understand how you could only live with that one lens - esp. on a crop body. I would think that at a minimum you'd need something in the 35mm range as well for portraits, unless you can always back up 50 feet or so

Sorry, I realize that my post is a bit confusing. Haha :P

My 1,000 budget is for a new lens (I'm pondering the 70-200), then I have the option to sell my 50 1.4 to get another lens that doesn't cover the range of the main one I plan to buy (right now the 70-200 but that may change).

Sara, I would suggest, if you can, trying the 70-200 on your camera prior to buying. I love that focal range on a FF and 1.3x camera, but not on a crop. It's always too tight inside and getting it on your camera may change your opinon some.

However, if you are sold on it, I will also suggest the 17-50 2.8 from either Sigma or Tamron to cover the wider end. Note that the focusing on the Tamron, while accurate, is slower than the 70-200 and, I believe, the Sigma. Otherwise, it is a stellar lens.

I just went through something similar in trying to hawk my tawdry wares to grab a 70-200 2.8 IS since they dropped below 2,000. My problem was that I had to have a 100 2.8L macro.

In the end, I found that I could live with the 70-200 4L non IS for now. It was the only way to make the math work, without eating lots of mac n cheese.

If you can live without 2.8, you can get the 4L non IS at 580 ish new or spotless used at 450-500.

Sorry for throwing a different angle at you.

Don't be sorry, I really appreciate the response!
I actually considered the f4, but I don't think I could live with the f4 part, haha.
I feel like I need a larger aperture for the amount of paid portrait work that I do...otherwise I would definitely get the f4.

Huntersdad,
My primary lens for 2 years was an 85 1.8, so I'm used to having to move my feet
But yes, that's why I'm wanting a wider lens also...to have when I can't physically move back anymore.

As good as the 70-200L lenses are, I wouldnt buy the Non-IS versions for a couple of reasons. First of all, IS makes that lens much more useable, unless you are working outside in good light all the time. The non-IS f 2.8 while cheaper, is still not a cheap lens. For roughly the same money you could the get IS f4, which is a sharper lens.

Another option might be to find a used Sigma 50-150 2.8 - same FOV of the 70-200 on FF. I don't think they had the focus issues Sigma is known for.

gonzogolf wrote in post #13508635
As good as the 70-200L lenses are, I wouldnt buy the Non-IS versions for a couple of reasons. First of all, IS makes that lens much more useable, unless you are working outside in good light all the time. The non-IS f 2.8 while cheaper, is still not a cheap lens. For roughly the same money you could the get IS f4, which is a sharper lens.

I do 98% of my work outdoors, so I don't think the lack of IS will really effect me much. (Not saying, of course that I wouldn't buy the 2.8ISii if I could afford it!! )
Plus, the 2.8 attracts me since I primarily shoot portraiture.

huntersdad wrote in post #13508647
Another option might be to find a used Sigma 50-150 2.8 - same FOV of the 70-200 on FF. I don't think they had the focus issues Sigma is known for.

Since I am splurging (to me 1k is a HUGE amount of money), I really want a taste of a Canon L. Not being snobby or anything. As for my wider lens I may buy, I don't mind what brand it is.

gonzogolf wrote in post #13508635
As good as the 70-200L lenses are, I wouldnt buy the Non-IS versions for a couple of reasons. First of all, IS makes that lens much more useable, unless you are working outside in good light all the time. The non-IS f 2.8 while cheaper, is still not a cheap lens. For roughly the same money you could the get IS f4, which is a sharper lens.

I disagree, both are excellent lenses but the IS really only helps if your shooting slow shutter speed which in most controlled portrait situations is not the case and even if it is the lighting would or should help in controlling that.

Both lenses would work fine for portraits but the 2.8 non IS does have its advantages over the F4IS but it sounds like the OP is not that sure about the range and if you find 70 to long then I would look at other options. Personally I find the 24-70 to be a more useful portrait lens but it all depends on you and how you shoot but both 2.8 zooms have been standards by many portrait shooters for years. IS or no IS.

In the end it really depends on your style. I know a photographer that does many of his portraits with a 16-35 on full frame. Your point about 85 being to long makes me think you should consider something else.

HayleySara wrote in post #13508697
I do 98% of my work outdoors, so I don't think the lack of IS will really effect me much. (Not saying, of course that I wouldn't buy the 2.8ISii if I could afford it!! )
Plus, the 2.8 attracts me since I primarily shoot portraiture.

Just saying, 2.8 isnt the be all end all of portrait work. If you want bokeh, forget a zoom and get a prime anyway. You are spending a lot of money on a lens where your shutter speed is going to need to be so high you are barely within flash sync speeds.

I found the 70-200 2.8 non-IS to be sharper (by a lot) than the 70-200 2.8 IS. I've never bothered with the F4 version, I've found too many shots where I needed 2.8/ Bokeh is pleasing on both these lenses.

gonzogolf wrote in post #13508736
Just saying, 2.8 isnt the be all end all of portrait work. If you want bokeh, forget a zoom and get a prime anyway. You are spending a lot of money on a lens where your shutter speed is going to need to be so high you are barely within flash sync speeds.

I am aware that 2.8 isn't necessary to do good portrait work. I just prefer creamier bokeh (not to mention the extra light I'd be able to suck up as compared to the f4 in the random 2% of my work that I need it). I rarely use flash or strobes, and even more rarely outdoors...although irrelevant to my point.