canon 70-200 2.8 mkii or tamron 24-70 2.8 & 70-200 2.8

17-40 isn't really a portrait lens.

Since you already own 50L and love it, look into 24LII.

That's as wide as you ever need for portrait.

how do you like your sigma 35?

how do you like your sigma 35 @kin2son

Your 50L, and 70-200 should cover all your portrait and fashion needs.

Heres a few pics I took with the 70-200:
(Outdoors)
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/rickrandh/91061​48674/
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/rickrandh/91061​48478/
(Indoors)
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/rickrandh/91061​48166/
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/rickrandh/91061​48010/

Add a 50L to that and you should be golden for everything you need. Use the money you'd spend on the Sig 35 or 17-40, and buy some lights.

You want another advice? You should start using paragraphs and punctuation

Take TheLensGuy's statement with a grain of salt, as he seems to bash all Sigma and Tamron lenses to the extreme. Though he does say it is his experience. Just from a resale point of view his statement isn't realistic. I understand his point, BUT as usual he is just bashing!

That said, I still probably would not do the trade. The Canon is the best in that range. That will be the range you will typically want to use. You have the best, stay with it. Another way to look at it he has the two lenses and wants to trade for your single lens. What does that tell you about how the other person feels about the quality of your lens versus those two lenses?

jimewall wrote in post #16139583
Take TheLensGuy's statement with a grain of salt, as he seems to bash all Sigma and Tamron lenses to the extreme. Though he does say it is his experience. Just from a resale point of view his statement isn't realistic. I understand his point, BUT as usual he is just bashing!

That said, I still probably would not do the trade. The Canon is the best in that range. That will be the range you will typically want to use. You have the best, stay with it. Another way to look at it he has the two lenses and wants to trade for your single lens. What does that tell you about how the other person feels about the quality of your lens versus those two lenses?

Would you trade in a Porsche Panamera for a Chevy SUV and a Honda Accord?

I am not bashing. You cannot compare the Canon lens to those Tamrons.

TheLensGuy wrote in post #16139788
Would you trade in a Porsche Panamera for a Chevy SUV and a Honda Accord?

I am not bashing. You cannot compare the Canon lens to those Tamrons.

Lol I just viewed it as he is a working professional and Im the noob so he would benefit from the best and i am god with something as good. I just don't see the sense in having a Porsche Panamera when your still learning to drive

TheLensGuy wrote in post #16138666
I would not give up my 70-200 MK II for all the Tamron lenses combined in their line-up.

Your first comment is above! It is the one I addressed.

TheLensGuy wrote in post #16139788
Would you trade in a Porsche Panamera for a Chevy SUV and a Honda Accord?

I am not bashing. You cannot compare the Canon lens to those Tamrons.

No, but your first comment was the entire lineup of one brand. So I take/trade one of every 2013 Chevy or one of every 2013 made Honda for a single Porsche Panamera in a heartbeat.

Plus, Yes you can compare those lenses. Even more appropriately than these unrelated car analogies that people like to give. In quite a few of the reviews I've seen the 24-70VC compares quite well to Canon's 24-70MKI, and pretty much beats it except in AF speed and slightly better build.

I have not looked at as many for the 70-200VC (because I am more than happy with my MKI), but I believe that many think it is a top notch lens worthy of contention. As I said though, the OP has the best 70-200mm f/2.8 IS MKII. I also told the OP to keep it over the other two. I agreed with you there.

I disagreed with your comment of the trade of the Canon 70-200 for the entire line-up of Tamron lenses (for that one lens). Yes, I would easily trade that lens for one of every lens Tamron makes. IMHO only a fool (or a very monetarily rich man who is content with his cash) wouldn't. I prefaced that by pointing out to some one new on this forum your very vocal dislike for off-brand lenses. It is pertinent to his potential trade.

Many of your posts are "bashing" off-brand lenses. They are your opinions, and your opinions will always be best for you (and they might even be valid and potentially applicable/useful to someone else).

You also often write in such a way as to try to start arguments. Here's just one example, and it is in this post -

TheLensGuy wrote in post #16139537
You want another advice? You should start using paragraphs and punctuation

I'm not sure you do this on purpose or what. I am not even close to the only one to notice, this or to point out the bashing nor the "argumentative" style.

I don't believed the OP asked or deserved that other advice. Heck, he may not even be a native English speaker. How would your Russian, Japanese, etc... punctuation be? Mine would be atrocious! I consider my English atrocious at times. It gets even worse when I try using a tablet to type my messages.

Offer helpful and useful information and advice. You have done this multiple times, I've seen it. Try to leave the rest behind.

I had no idea someone could be such a douche via forums. I've been writing on my tablet and honestly didn't feel the need to correct my punctuation with a fine tooth comb.

TheLensGuy wrote in post #16139788
Would you trade in a Porsche Panamera for a Chevy SUV and a Honda Accord?

I am not bashing. You cannot compare the Canon lens to those Tamrons.

Of course you are bashing. Many consider the Tamron 24-70 VC better overall than any of the Canon 24-70s, certainly better than anything except the twice as expensive 24-70 L II non-IS. Many consider the Sigma 35 1.4 better than the Canon 35L. Many consider the Sigma 85 a reasonable alternative to the slow focusing Canon 85L.

Your broad putdown of any lens not labeled a "Canon L" is getting ridiculous. And I don't get where your attitude is coming from, unless your goal is to be added to a bunch of members Ignore List.

BTW, I'd probably pass on the OP's original deal, but I'll be happy to buy a 70-200 II and trade it for a new copy of all 19 of the current Tamron lenses in their lineup. Any takers?

TheLensGuy wrote in post #16138666
I would not give up my 70-200 MK II for all the Tamron lenses combined in their line-up.

I'm with you!

I'd rather have one great lens instead of a boat load of mediocre lens, so no I would never trade the 70-200 mk2 if I were you.

ben805 wrote in post #16143385
I'd rather have one great lens instead of a boat load of mediocre lens, so no I would never trade the 70-200 mk2 if I were you.

the 70-200's are virtually on the same level in terms of image quality. For being such a mediocre lens, it even scores higher in the Dxo mark, so that would make the 70-200 mkii a mediocre lens as well .

I'll take the two lenses easily.

I was in a similar situation, had saved up for a Tamron 70-200/2.8 and than a used Canon 70-200/2.8 II was offered for allmost the same price. I assume my technical skills are not sufficient to be limited by either of the two.
Doubts..doubts...doubt​s.
Than a tie-break, the canon was sold to someone else.
I would have preferred the used Canon if in good state, even in your situation since I have the lower FL's covered well. Also I think that I will be happy with the Tamron since I dislike the looks of a big white lens and the Tamron has a nice black colour.