Rethinking lens lineup with a budget of $2000

I'll keep this short & simple. Budget is around $2000. Current body and lenses is 6D and 24-105, 50mm 1.8. Primarily shoot people/events. No weddings, but stuff like parties, work events, family gatherings etc. Mostly use the 35-60mm range, clustered closely around 50mm often. Often also use the tele-end 105mm for the subject isolation and shallow DOF I can get, even at f/4.

Budget is a ceiling, don't have to spend all of it. I think primary decision is getting the 24-70 f/2.8ii or a high-quality prime such as the Sigma 50A or the 50mm 1.2L.

subject isolation ...
Sigma 85mm f/1.4 EX or Canon EF 85mm f/1.2 for example (The sigma have an incredible ratio price-value/Image quality/tack sharp at f/1.4 already)
Canon EF 135mm f/2
I don't see the need for the 24-70, you have already the 24-105 (ok one stop less for the 24-70, but you have already this focal length with 24-105 IMO)
Just my thought

Reservoir Dog wrote in post #17094471
subject isolation ...
Sigma 85mm f/1.4 EX or Canon EF 85mm f/1.2 for example (The sigma have an incredible ratio price-value/Image quality/tack sharp at f/1.4 already)
Canon EF 135mm f/2
I don't see the need for the 24-70, you have already the 24-105 (ok one stop less for the 24-70, but you have already this focal length with 24-105 IMO)
Just my thought

Agreeing with the point that 24-70 is redundant. Also 24-70 at 2.8 offers not that a thin DOF as you might want (i know i dont).

I would really get the 50L because i love mine. Its sharp its 1.2 and thus barely sees in the dark! Its a tough lens to master but if you nail it its pretty awesome what you can get. If you want very sharp images but a bit less creamy background for your subject isolation get the Sigma 50 art. However i would sacrifice the sharpness for the magic the 50L can perform.

Keep the 24-105 and buy 35/2 IS, 85/1.8 and 135/2

Or

Sell 24-105 and 50/1.8 and buy 24-70 VC 50/1.4 and 135/2

Sigma 35 or 50 Art + Sigma 85 1.4 (new Art version may be announced next month however)

Sigma 35/50 Art + Canon 135L

Sigma 35/50 Art + Canon 85 1.8 or Canon 100 f2

davidfarina wrote in post #17094591
Agreeing with the point that 24-70 is redundant. Also 24-70 at 2.8 offers not that a thin DOF as you might want (i know i dont).

I would really get the 50L because i love mine. Its sharp its 1.2 and thus barely sees in the dark! Its a tough lens to master but if you nail it its pretty awesome what you can get. If you want very sharp images but a bit less creamy background for your subject isolation get the Sigma 50 art. However i would sacrifice the sharpness for the magic the 50L can perform.

I had a chance to use the 24-70ii for a while recently, and I kinda agree, the DOF wasn't as thin as I'd like (when I'm specifically going for shallow DOF) and wasn't a huge different from f/4 imo.

With the versatility and range of the 24-105, that and a high quality prime lens may be my best option.

slookx24 wrote in post #17094608
Sigma 35 or 50 Art + Sigma 85 1.4 (new Art version may be announced next month however)

The Sigma 85mm f/1.4 EX was introduce in 2010, if we take as reference the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX (introduce in 2008) to the Art version (2014), we should wait a minimum of 2 years more before to see an Art version of the 85mm EX witch in my opinion will not give as much as it is actually

The Dark Knight wrote in post #17094393
I'll keep this short & simple. Budget is around $2000. Current body and lenses is 6D and 24-105, 50mm 1.8. Primarily shoot people/events. No weddings, but stuff like parties, work events, family gatherings etc. Mostly use the 35-60mm range, clustered closely around 50mm often. Often also use the tele-end 105mm for the subject isolation and shallow DOF I can get, even at f/4.

Budget is a ceiling, don't have to spend all of it. I think primary decision is getting the 24-70 f/2.8ii or a high-quality prime such as the Sigma 50A or the 50mm 1.2L.

Heya,

Canon 35 F2 IS ($450ish)
Sigma 50mm F1.4 (non-ART) ($270ish)
Sigma 85mm F1.4 ($700ish)

Very best,

Keep the 24-105. Pick up 35 f/2 IS, 85 f/1.8 and 135 L for around $2K. This will make an excellent prime trio for shooting portraits and events.

are you doing this for paid work or for fun? if it's for fun, a prime or pair, if it's paid work, F2.8 zoom.

Charlie wrote in post #17095862
are you doing this for paid work or for fun? if it's for fun, a prime or pair, if it's paid work, F2.8 zoom.

For fun!

Thanks for the helpful responses. Decided to order the 35mm f/2 IS and the 85mm 1.8 and pocket $1000.

The Dark Knight wrote in post #17094681
I had a chance to use the 24-70ii for a while recently, and I kinda agree, the DOF wasn't as thin as I'd like (when I'm specifically going for shallow DOF) and wasn't a huge different from f/4 imo.

With the versatility and range of the 24-105, that and a high quality prime lens may be my best option.

The 24-70 II is a wonderful and very useful lens, but is not a "fun" lens, and is not going to please you if thin depth of field is what you are going for.

If you can, as others suggested, try out the 135L to compliment your 24-105. It is a fun lens, and good for outdoor events and portraiture. If you do indoor events, it may be a little long (and lack of IS may be a challenge in some conditions, if you are used to that).

If you like 50mm as a focal length (or if you are doing a lot of indoor events), and want thin depth of field, then i think the new sigma art is the best you can buy at the moment. Ive used both that and the 50 1.2 and unless "creamy creamy bokeh" or a red ring are your absolute and non-debatable #1 priorities, I think the Sigma is the better buy.

The Dark Knight wrote in post #17096808
Thanks for the helpful responses. Decided to order the 35mm f/2 IS and the 85mm 1.8 and pocket $1000.

Im sorry, just saw your response!

the 85 1.8 is great for bigger rooms, great bokeh, IQ good wide open. 135 is excellent for candids, that's my type of shooting.