I'm close to a decision...one more question

After hearing advice from you all here and much more pondering and thought I'm about to purchase a Sigma 17-50 2.8 and a 85 1.8 to add to my existing 50 1.8 and 70-200 f4.

I like the idea of having the 85 as a faster option on the long end of things but I'm wondering if it would be wise to add a faster option at the wide end, too. It would push me over my spending limit but I might be able to sweet talk DH into a smidge more.

Would the Sigma 30 1.4 be worth adding in to the mix? I'm mainly interested in people photography (individual or small group portraits & candids but might have the occasional 'more than 3 people' scenerio). Or would the 17-50 suffice?

To get sufficient DOF for a group you probably are going to be at 2.8 or more so I dont see a reason for the 30, especially for individual portraits because of perspective distortion.

I am speaking from a rather newbie point here but I had an issue with deciding between the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 or the Sigma one. I would highly recommend the Tamron over the Sigma, I compared my Tamron to a friends Sigma today and the Tamron blew it out of the water for the same sort of price as the Sigma. But before someone starts an argument with me, this is just an opinion so save me the lecture.

I too went for the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 the non VC version.
It's a rather good lens.

your 17-50 will have no problems with group shoots but I do think that the 30mm can add versatility to your kit as it's a "normal" FL and would work well in darker places (especially indoors)

I don't think it should give much distortion as it's an equivalent of a 50mm on FF... then again I might be wrong

I had the 17-50 f2.8 and 30mm f1.4 at the same time, and honestly, I don't think I would recommend owning both as they kind of compete. If you aren't going to find f2.8 fast enough on its own, then you probably should just get the f1.4 prime and a more versatile zoom like the 18-135 STM, 15-85 or Sigma 17-70. If you switch to the prime everytime the light drops, then why get a short f2.8 zoom?

Just my opinion based on owning that combo. I know have 30mm f1.4 and 15-85.

You also probably won't use the 50mm f1.8 after you get the 85, and especially if you get a 30, too.

eyalha wrote in post #16105401
your 17-50 will have no problems with group shoots but I do think that the 30mm can add versatility to your kit as it's a "normal" FL and would work well in darker places (especially indoors)

I don't think it should give much distortion as it's an equivalent of a 50mm on FF... then again I might be wrong

I wouldnt do anything less than 3/4 shots with a fifty on full frame.

I personally own the Sigma 30 1.4 and the Canon 85 1.8 and it is a killer combo. I am in the process of divesting my two kit lens. It will leave me with my two primes and my two zooms 28-80 and 70-200 and I think I will have most of my range covered with those 4 lenses.
I used to think that I needed an in between prime (like a 50) but when I looked at my shots and looked at where most of my shots on the zooms were taken, it was usually all the way in, or all the way out. So that middle ground was kind of unnecessary.

daystar wrote in post #16105340
After hearing advice from you all here and much more pondering and thought I'm about to purchase a Sigma 17-50 2.8 and a 85 1.8 to add to my existing 50 1.8 and 70-200 f4.

I like the idea of having the 85 as a faster option on the long end of things but I'm wondering if it would be wise to add a faster option at the wide end, too. It would push me over my spending limit but I might be able to sweet talk DH into a smidge more.

Would the Sigma 30 1.4 be worth adding in to the mix? I'm mainly interested in people photography (individual or small group portraits & candids but might have the occasional 'more than 3 people' scenerio). Or would the 17-50 suffice?

If you buy all these lenses (except for 30mm), you will have a setup essentially identical to mine - with the exception of my 135L instead of 85mm. I find all my lenses complimenting each other very well, I am pretty happy with my setup. I do a lot of portraiture, and I don't feel a need for something like 30mm f1.4 at all - for portraits, I don't wanna be shorter than ~40mm anyway, and a combination of Sigma 17-50, 135L, and 70-200 f4 serves all my portraiture needs, both indoors (including studio) and outdoors.

I actually ended up selling my nifty-fifty after getting the Sigma 17-50 - too much redundancy. My Sigma is as good at 50mm f2.8 as nifty-fifty is at f2.5 or so, so essentially no advantage.

Thanks everyone for such quick responses!

The reason I considered the 30 in addition to the 17-50 was mainly for artistic options. No, I wouldn't be using the wide available apertures for a group at all but rather for an environmental 'artsy' shot maybe of an individual or couple. Or use it as a low light indoor option. So I guess I'm still undecided on this one....

And my 50 1.8 has been with me for a long time. It's such a quiet little bugger, sitting tucked way in the back of my bag that I usually forget it's there. And I've never seen that it would be worth the effort or little bit of money to sell it. So, therefore, it has a permanent home with me. And maybe one day one of my kids might want to pick up a camera too and it will be a great starter lens for them.

I have found that the 85mm is tight indoors on a crop camera and I'm going to purchase the Sigma 35mm 1.4 next. I like my 85mm, just wish I had purchased the 35mm first. Your 70-200mm could be your outdoor portrait lens.

Sigma 35mm is probably a waste of money over the 30mm unless you are immediately planning to jump to FF.

tkbslc wrote in post #16105407
I had the 17-50 f2.8 and 30mm f1.4 at the same time, and honestly, I don't think I would recommend owning both as they kind of compete. If you aren't going to find f2.8 fast enough on its own, then you probably should just get the f1.4 prime and a more versatile zoom like the 18-135 STM, 15-85 or Sigma 17-70. If you switch to the prime everytime the light drops, then why get a short f2.8 zoom?

I have the Sigma 17-50 and 30/1.4 and I would say to at least try using the 17-50 with out it for a while. I got my 17-50 after getting the 30 and the 30 doesn't get as much use now.

Getting the new 18-35/1.8 might actually do the job of both.

Thank you, FEChariot.

FEChariot wrote in post #16105941
I have the Sigma 17-50 and 30/1.4 and I would say to at least try using the 17-50 with out it for a while. I got my 17-50 after getting the 30 and the 30 doesn't get as much use now.

I didn't use my 30mm as much after I got the 17-50, but I couldn't part with the two stop advantage when it came time to pick one. I think if I had started with a 17-50, I wouldn't have known the difference and been content with f2.8. I prob wouldn't have got the f1.4.