few questions about lenses!

Ok.

Right now I shoot a Canon 7D with a 50mm 1.8 mkII and a Canon 10-22mm wide angle for skateboarding.

I am getting into portraits slowly and wondering,


Two questions.


Is the original 24-70 by canon worth it for portraits and general shooting with zoom or should I just wait and get a different one/ the mkII version?

Next

Is the canon 50mm 1.4 gonna put out better quality pictures than the 1.8? I was thinking about getting it used for around $330 if it will make a difference in my portrait work.


Examples from these lenses with this camera would be AMAZING!

/EDIT IMPORTANT

I do not mind primes at all. I love them and I would not mind getting a good set, I just figured the 24-70 would be the best best price wise to cover all the things I need for now.

I hate my 50mm 1.8, but I have read other quite like it. I haven't used the 50 1.4, but reviews would suggest its a step up for the 1.8.
I would prefer the 24-70L, or better still the 24-70Lii. The 24-70 v1 isn't at its best on the 7D, seems to preform better on FF. An alternate is the 24-105, you don't get f2.8, its f/4, but sharpness and IQ is as good as the 24-70 V1 with IS as well.

I guess it depends on your budget, but for what your type of use
On the 7D, my order of preference would be
24-70ii
24-105 f/4
50 f/1.4
24-70

if I was intending to go FF later.
24-70ii
24-70
24-105 f/4
50 f/1.4

DamianOz wrote in post #15991071
I hate my 50mm 1.8, but I have read other quite like it. I haven't used the 50 1.4, but reviews would suggest its a step up for the 1.8.
I would prefer the 24-70L, or better still the 24-70Lii. The 24-70 v1 isn't at its best on the 7D, seems to preform better on FF. An alternate is the 24-105, you don't get f2.8, its f/4, but sharpness and IQ is as good as the 24-70 V1 with IS as well.

I guess it depends on your budget, but for what your type of use
On the 7D, my order of preference would be
24-70ii
24-105 f/4
50 f/1.4
24-70

if I was intending to go FF later.
24-70ii
24-70
24-105 f/4
50 f/1.4

I do eventually plan on getting a FF.
Right now I'm gonna stick with this 7D but once I get heavier into photos I will be getting one.
My main concern is one overall good zoom so I can have every variety I need.

All I shoot is skateboarding and portraits.

That is why I figured the mk1 24-70 would be good

The Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 is almost as good as the Canon 24-70 II, costs half the price (1000$ less) and has image stabilization (or vibration control how Tamron calls it).
Only the corners are just a bit worse compared to the 24-70 II. You won't see it on your 7D and it is not bad at all on full frame. Auto focus is a bit slower and it has more distortion which can be easily corrected.
It is a better lens than the first version of Canon 24-70 for the same price.

If you want to go with primes: I would recommend the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 which is a bit more expensive than the Canon 50mm f/1.4 lens but if you get a good copy it is almost as good as Canon's 50mm f/1.2L.
If you move to full frame or want a bit telephoto lens on crop the 85mm f/1.8 and 100mm f/2 are both great lenses. 85mm should be more useful on crop and on full frame it depends on your shooting style.
The Sigma 30mm f/1.4 (there are two versions - the old one and the "Art" lens) are both good lenses, of course the "Art" lens is better but also more expensive. Canon 28mm f/1.8 is also a great lens for about the same price and you can use it on full frame. You can't do that with both Sigma's.

lennartsw wrote in post #15991111
The Sigma 30mm f/1.4 (there are two versions - the old one and the "Art" lens) are both good lenses, of course the "Art" lens is better but also more expensive. Canon 28mm f/1.8 is also a great lens for about the same price and you can use it on full frame. You can't do that with both Sigma's.

The Sigma 35 Art can be used on both crop and FF, its a cracker of a lens! but a little more expensive than the 30mm

Have
you
ever
wondered

why most

books are

formatted with left justified text?

lennartsw wrote in post #15991111
The Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 is almost as good as the Canon 24-70 II, costs half the price (1000$ less) and has image stabilization (or vibration control how Tamron calls it).
Only the corners are just a bit worse compared to the 24-70 II. You won't see it on your 7D and it is not bad at all on full frame. Auto focus is a bit slower and it has more distortion which can be easily corrected.
It is a better lens than the first version of Canon 24-70 for the same price.

The 24-70mm II is lauded for it's sharpness, but what I find equally impressive is it's colour and contrast.
The problem with the Tamron is the bokeh isn't very good and for this reason I would suggest the Sigma 24-70mm if you can't afford the Canon.

Totally, the 50mm Sigma produces fantastic images and has amazing bokeh. But I find it's build quality questionable.. seeing as it seems to suck up dust like a vaccuum cleaner, for some reason I have quite a few largish specs between the elements.

The Sigma 85mm 1.4 is also a good alternative to the Canon 85mm 1.8, the Sigma 85mm is actually pretty close to the Canon 85mm 1.2 in image quality at a much lower price, in fact it rates as sharper than the Canon and has a warmer colour tone. Sigma's 35mm 1.4 is also great, Sigma seems to do a great job with primes but a mediocre job with zooms.

Mornnb wrote in post #15991290
The 24-70mm II is lauded for it's sharpness, but what I find equally impressive is it's colour and contrast.

I just got my second copy of the EF 24-70 L MkII. Due to ^$&^$%& engagements, I haven't had a chance to go out and shoot more than around 100 test shots in the neighborhood and inside. This is just a test shot...

IMAGE LINK: http://s37.photobucket​.com …1024_zpsf12a1d3​6.jpg.html

IMAGE LINK: http://s37.photobucket​.com …crop_zpsae083ff​e.jpg.html

not bad at all, particularly at 67mm f/2.8

Mornnb wrote in post #15991290
The problem with the Tamron is the bokeh isn't very good and for this reason I would suggest the Sigma 24-70mm if you can't afford the Canon.

Yeah, Tamron's bokeh is not as nice as Canon's, but I don't know if Sigma does better. The Sigma is worse in all categories compared to the Tamron, mabye except bokeh. But you don't buy a zoom lens for bokeh anyway.

Mornnb wrote in post #15991290
The Sigma 85mm 1.4 is also a good alternative to the Canon 85mm 1.8, the Sigma 85mm is actually pretty close to the Canon 85mm 1.2 in image quality at a much lower price, in fact it rates as sharper than the Canon and has a warmer colour tone. Sigma's 35mm 1.4 is also great, Sigma seems to do a great job with primes but a mediocre job with zooms.

Yes, the Sigma's are great, but the TO mentioned a 24-70 zoom or a prime set. Since Sigma 35mm and 85mm cost 1000$ each I didn't mention them.

Thanks for the responses.

I have definitely decided on a 24-70mm zoom when I can afford.

I just want to get the best one for the money.

I don't mind waiting a bit to get a different one if it is indeed better.

I just heard very good things about the canon 24-70 mk1 and that for a non professional I would be very happy with it

hollis_f wrote in post #15991286
Have
you
ever
wondered

why most

books are

formatted with left justified text?

I was thinking the same thing.

Nick Aufiero wrote in post #15994778
I just don't want to get the best one for the money.

uhhhhhh what? lol

hollis_f wrote in post #15991286
Have
you
ever
wondered

why most

books are

formatted with left justified text?

not
sure
what
you
mean
there
Frank
:p

Found this on the internet. Tamron 24-70mm vs Canon 24-70mm I
Tamron is much sharper but the Canon seems to have better bokeh and more blur at the same aperture.

MakisM1 wrote in post #15991431
I don't remember seeing 100% crop of any lens that it looked and felt like a normal photo...

These are jpegs SOOC, only in-camera processing

Only other lens I own that are as sharp are the 90mm Tamron Macro and the 200mm 2.8.
The bad thing about the 24-70mm II is that it makes my 17-40mm wide angle look comparatively bad.