Prime suggestions? What can I get after selling 24-105 f/4L + 50mm 1.8

Title says it.

I'm into portraits and 24-105 f/4L doesn't cut it for me (even though it takes good, sharp pics at 105mm). What can/should I get if I sell 24-105 + a 50mm 1.8 II?

Thanks peeps

Crop or FF?

Primes: For crop I'd use my Sigma 50 f/1.4 or Canon 85 f/1.8. For FF the 85 f/1.8 or 135 f/2L.
Zoom: 70-200L f/2.8.

It also depends on your definition of 'portrait', you way wish to go slightly wider?

135 f/2 and/or 85 1.8.

for portraits:
Canon 85mm f/1.8 (very good price to value ratio)
Canon 85 1.2L (great but I guess it is out of your budget)
Samyang 85 1.4 (better than the Canon 1.8 but it is MF only)
Canon 100mm f/2 (it is exactly like the 85 1.8)
Canon 135 f2L (this one is a must if you have the money !!! amazing lens, one of the most liked lens ever built)

FF. Mark II

I had the 135 f/2L but I was using it on crop (T3i). Sold it to fund something else.

Can't afford 70-200 f/2.8L or 85 1.2L.

Had samyang 85/1.4. But I'm shooting 'running' kids 90% of the time and MF was really ticking me off so returned it.

I'm thinking if these two sell for good price, I can add let's say $100 or so more, get Sigma 35/1.4?

85/1.8 seems like a good choice since I can save some money to get a Light Stand, An Umbrella Swivel, Optical White, Shoot-Through Umbrella and A Sync Kit for my flash.

Deciding between 85/1.8 - 135 f/2 and Sigma 35/1.4.

i would get the Sigma 35

nekrosoft13 wrote in post #16241216
i would get the Sigma 35

For portraits on a FF body?

Definitely NOT Sigma 35 for running kids outdoor.

So between 85 1.8 and 135L, 135L wins hands down.

Go take a few portraits, specifically head/shoulder portraits, with your 24-105 set at 35mm. Pay special attention to the size and shape of the nose/head, then ask yourself if you still want to consider the 35 for portrait work.

As good as the S35 is, it is not what yo want for your close up portraits, it is good for general wider shots tho.

85mm is the minimum focal length to use to avoid ugly distortion.

mannetti21 wrote in post #16242493
Go take a few portraits, specifically head/shoulder portraits, with your 24-105 set at 35mm. Pay special attention to the size and shape of the nose/head, then ask yourself if you still want to consider the 35 for portrait work.

...and then after doing this, also set it to 85mm and decide if that focal length works for the types of portraits you are considering. If yes, then the 85mm f/1.8 is a good, inexpensive option and the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 is a more expensive option (assuming the 85L is out of your budget, based on what you are selling). If not, try again at 105mm. If that gets you closer to what you are looking for, then the 135L may be a good option.

In other words, take advantage of your zoom lens to figure out which focal length makes the most sense for what you are trying to shoot. I never understand why so many people here ask which prime lens to buy and never think of doing this. It doesn't matter how good the lens is if the focal length doesn't work for you.

Get the Canon 85/1.8 and 135/2... Or just get the Canon 100/2. Or, if you prefer and want to spend the extra for it, get the Sigma 85/1.4. These are all good portrait lenses with USM (or HSM) that will be able to keep up with kids.

85mm is generally a good indoor focal length. 100 and 135mm need more working space, might be better outdoors, but also can be less intrusive for more candid shots. Or might make for tighter head and shoulder or face shots.

The 85/1.2L is a "dream lens" for portraiture, but would only be my choice if making serious money off my lenses and it were needed for formal, posed shots such as weddings. By design, it focuses a bit slower than the Canon 85/1.8. The f1.2 uses "long throw" focus that emphasizes precision over speed. That's needed with a lens capable of ridiculously shallow depth of field.

The 85/1.8 is capable of pretty strongly blurring a background, too, is a lot smaller and ligher, as well as much more affordable... and is fast focusing. It's main drawback is some chromatic aberration, especially wide open. But that's also pretty easily fixed in post processing during RAW conversions. I also don't like the clip-on lens hood (as opposed to the bayonet mount hoods that most Canon lenses use). It looks flimsy, but has surprised me by holding up after many years of use.

In price, size and weight, the Sigma 85/1.4 is somewhere in between the Canon 85s.

The Canon 135/2L is a wonderful lens. But you know that if you had one in the past. Use it wide open for very strong backgound blur and a dreamy look that's similar to what the 85/1.2 or 50/1.2 produce. Or stop it down when you want to sharpen things up very nicely. It's also quite usable with a 1.4X teleconverter, as an effective 189mm f2.8 (so might not need a 200mm at all). It is very fast focusing.... can be used for practically any sports, if you wish.

I don't have the 100/2... It sort of gets overlooked but might be worth consideration if you prefer a single portrait lens or prefer to use a 50mm and 100mm lens combo instead of, say, 35m, 85 and 135. It's also a USM lens and fast focusing.

If you like to do "environmental portraits"... broader shots showing a person in their surroundings, at work or something... then you might want to consider 28mm, one of the 35mm, or a 50mm lens. All these have to be used carefully. Get too close and you'll see strong perspective distortions that exaggerate whatever is nearest to the lens, in relation to more distant objects (i.e., big noses and tiny ears). You also have to be careful about keeping people away from the edges of the image, where there will be anamorphic distortion (i.e., the "Hellboy" look, where the arm closest to the edge appears significantly larger than the other.... or "elephant leg", where a leg near the edge looks oddly oversized).

Thank you for your suggestions people. My dealer just texted me a deal on couple of lenses !

70-200 f/2.8 L with hood (used) - $850
and
24-70 f/2.8 L (with 1 year warranty) - $800

I need to pick up one of these. I've used the 70-200 before but not 24-70. I need to decide in couple of hours since I think this is a very good price... umm, right?

amfoto1 wrote in post #16244653
Get the Canon 85/1.8 and 135/2... Or just get the Canon 100/2. Or, if you prefer and want to spend the extra for it, get the Sigma 85/1.4. These are all good portrait lenses with USM (or HSM) that will be able to keep up with kids.

85mm is generally a good indoor focal length. 100 and 135mm need more working space, might be better outdoors, but also can be less intrusive for more candid shots. Or might make for tighter head and shoulder or face shots.

The 85/1.2L is a "dream lens" for portraiture, but would only be my choice if making serious money off my lenses and it were needed for formal, posed shots such as weddings. By design, it focuses a bit slower than the Canon 85/1.8. The f1.2 uses "long throw" focus that emphasizes precision over speed. That's needed with a lens capable of ridiculously shallow depth of field.

The 85/1.8 is capable of pretty strongly blurring a background, too, is a lot smaller and ligher, as well as much more affordable... and is fast focusing. It's main drawback is some chromatic aberration, especially wide open. But that's also pretty easily fixed in post processing during RAW conversions. I also don't like the clip-on lens hood (as opposed to the bayonet mount hoods that most Canon lenses use). It looks flimsy, but has surprised me by holding up after many years of use.

In price, size and weight, the Sigma 85/1.4 is somewhere in between the Canon 85s.

The Canon 135/2L is a wonderful lens. But you know that if you had one in the past. Use it wide open for very strong backgound blur and a dreamy look that's similar to what the 85/1.2 or 50/1.2 produce. Or stop it down when you want to sharpen things up very nicely. It's also quite usable with a 1.4X teleconverter, as an effective 189mm f2.8 (so might not need a 200mm at all). It is very fast focusing.... can be used for practically any sports, if you wish.

I don't have the 100/2... It sort of gets overlooked but might be worth consideration if you prefer a single portrait lens or prefer to use a 50mm and 100mm lens combo instead of, say, 35m, 85 and 135. It's also a USM lens and fast focusing.

If you like to do "environmental portraits"... broader shots showing a person in their surroundings, at work or something... then you might want to consider 28mm, one of the 35mm, or a 50mm lens. All these have to be used carefully. Get too close and you'll see strong perspective distortions that exaggerate whatever is nearest to the lens, in relation to more distant objects (i.e., big noses and tiny ears). You also have to be careful about keeping people away from the edges of the image, where there will be anamorphic distortion (i.e., the "Hellboy" look, where the arm closest to the edge appears significantly larger than the other.... or "elephant leg", where a leg near the edge looks oddly oversized).

I read between the lines your suggestion and found it very useful. My body is 5Dc, rather than the 24-105, I would take 135mm for portrait. For the last "environmental portraits" which I sometime have the need, kindly be more specific on how the take good picture. Once I have 24-105 for streetlife, is it advisable to get 24L or 35L specifically for "environmental portraits".

I am new to photography, can you drop photo of example? Thanks, Tommy