Sell Sigma 50 f/1.4 for a Canon 24-105L ?

I use a T4i, and along with 2 kit lenses (EFS 18-55 and 55-250 both IS II) I recently purchased a Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM. It's a real nice sharp lens. However I'm finding that I'm not using it much. I'm just a hobby photographer for now, however at family gatherings am the "designated photographer".

I realize that the 50mm on my camera gives me the equivalent to an 80mm so it can be difficult for me to get some of the shots I like. For now I must resort to my kit 18-55 for those.

I've been reading a lot on the 24-105L, and am liking what I've been reading. It would be my first "L" if I pick one up. Lately the prices seem to be moving into my budget.

I guess my question is, would it be worthwhile to sell my Sigma to help finance a 24-105L? OR
I have a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 APO, sell both Sigma lenses, to pick up a Canon 700-200 f/4 IS L ?

I've seen a few 24-105L and 70-200 f/4's sold on here and have come so close to pulling the trigger, but that little voice keeps telling me to just stick with what I have. I've been slowly building up my gear, (flashes, modifiers), constantly reading, watching info videos from some of the big name photogs) and learning my gear so I can shoot for cash. There's a lot of so called "pro photographers" in my area, so I know to compete, when I hang my shingle out, I must be able to show I know what I'm doing, not just pressing a shutter.

Would the 24-105L serve me as a good quality lens for portraits? I know wedding photogs praise the 70-200. Also I know that in the end, when/if I start getting some business I will need to upgrade my camera, but I think that my T4i is still capable of doing the job to start out with. Right or not??

Just looking for some additional advise on this move..

To me, a 50mm prime on a 1.6X camera is good for some specific things like portraits and certain sports, but it is not a generalist lens and it would not be my choice for events.

You say you have an 18-55, but that you only use it as a last resort. Why is that? The focal length range? The slow maximum aperture? The AF performance? You should be sure to understand this so you know if the 24-105L will address the things you do not especially like with the 18-55.

Also, if it is maximum aperture that you are after, note that there are some 17-50 kind if range zoom lenses for 1.6X format cameras that have f/2.8 maximum apertures. These might be more convenient and a better fit for you than the 24-105L depending on what you are looking for.

I guess my main reasons would be IQ, and a little better range. I've looked at some of the reviews on the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM, and it seems that there's problems lens creep, weak construction, focus issues. Plus it costs more than the 24-105L.

I had the 24-105 its not very sharp at F4 , 5.6 is good but must of the time I had to bump up my ISO to be able to take a decent shot ,17-55 is a good lens or you can buy tamron 17-50 and keep your 50 1.4 for portraits

Ok I'll have a look at the Tamron 17-50. I appreciate your input majix.

It's my pleasure, I had the tamron on my 50D , it is a very good lens for the price (non VC is sharper ) , at f4 its sharper than 17-40L
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=2

you can keep your sigma or buy 85 1.8 instead for closer headshots (If you will to upgrade to FF tamron 24-70 VC is another option , on crop body its long enough for portrait)

majix wrote in post #16569722
I had the 24-105 its not very sharp at F4 , 5.6 is good but must of the time I had to bump up my ISO to be able to take a decent shot ,17-55 is a good lens or you can buy tamron 17-50 and keep your 50 1.4 for portraits

Don't spout this like it's fact- plenty of people have very sharp 24-105 f/4L lenses.

The primary complaints about this lens are about the distortion at the wide end- not many users complain about sharpness. Mine was VERY sharp, even wide open, at all focal lengths. I only replaced it because I wanted faster, not sharper.

adamo99 wrote in post #16570837
Don't spout this like it's fact- plenty of people have very sharp 24-105 f/4L lenses.

The primary complaints about this lens are about the distortion at the wide end- not many users complain about sharpness. Mine was VERY sharp, even wide open, at all focal lengths. I only replaced it because I wanted faster, not sharper.

yes maybe yours was very sharp , but I know lots of people how are complaining about the sharpness of their 24-105 ,It depends on your expectation
compared to Tamron 17-50 its not really sharp
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0

compared to Tamron 24-70 VC on FF
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=2

The 24-105 is a great lens with a 50mm prime.
I think I would miss the 2.8 aperture for portrait shots if I got rid of my 1.4.

In fact, most of the shots I take are with my 28mm prime and 50mm prime. I barely even uses my 24-105 anymore.
Just sell the kit lenses and get the 24-105.

Tamron 17-50 non-VC. Canon 15-85. Canon 17-55. IMHO, all better choices than the 24-105 on APSc.

24-105L is a fine lens. So I would go for it. I'm currently using it on my t2i camera, and with a flash, it takes pretty good photos indoor. It serves well as a walk-around lens.

Get the lens and then decide whether you like it or not. Do you need to sell the Sigma 50 before getting the 24-105? If not, then keep both and compare them. If you have a good copy of Sigma 50, then keep it. You're lucky that you won a Sigma lottery.
Also 24-105 f/4 cannot replace Sigma 50.

I had Canon 17-55 on 7D before, and that was a superb lens.

I was in a similar situation to you about a year ago. I have a T2i and had the two kit lenses you have plus the Canon 50mm 1.8 II. I picked up a 2nd hand 24-105L. It's a great general purpose lens. The two things I have noticed about it that are limiting are that there is a noticeable difference between the 17mm wide end of the kit lens and the 24mm wide end of the 24-105. Shooting in certain indoor situations, I still go back to the 17-55. If you shoot indoor for family events, the F/4 is not often wide enough so you have to go higher iso to get your shots. I use the 50mm 1.8 to get the speed of the wider aperture if I have enough room inside. If you do sell the 50mm 1.4, I would recommend picking up the canon nifty fifty (50mm f/1.8 II) as you can get this lens for around $80 if you catch a sale. For the price, it's a good deal and will get you back closer to the speed of your 1.4 (if you indeed need that speed). The 24-105 is a great lens and I use if quite a bit.

frozenframe wrote in post #16568933
Would the 24-105L serve me as a good quality lens for portraits? I know wedding photogs praise the 70-200. Also I know that in the end, when/if I start getting some business I will need to upgrade my camera, but I think that my T4i is still capable of doing the job to start out with. Right or not??

Yes, it's a great portrait lens. I use mine in the studio and outdoors, on a 7D, and it does a very nice job. The range is very useful, the lens is very sharp, and it's easy to achieve good background separation outdoors. It also focuses quickly, and does a good job with action too.

Consider selling the 50 for a 30 or 35 (pick your flavor). In my case I went from using the 50 only occasionally to the 30 a lot. You can see my lens lineup in my sig for reference.

That being said my most often used lens in my very sharp and flexible 24-105.

Well finally pulled the trigger. Sold the 50 f/1.4 and picked up a Sigma 17-50 f/2.8.