Is it even worth it?

I would love the the input from you guys on the following..

I own a Rebel XT.
I'm into portrait photography and family type ( outside ) photos.

I'm using a basic 18-55mm kit lens right now and a 50mm 1.8 nifty fifty.

Now I've been considering to get an L lens for my pictures, and have been pondering between

1- 24-105mm L
2- 24 -70m L

is there such a HUGE Difference between the Canon 24-70 and Sigma's 24-70..???

Now my main question is, Should one make an investment on a lens that cost DOUBLE the price of their BODY alone, or should I upgrade the body first to get the FULL Use out of the Len's potential ..

Any suggestions would be great ful.

Thanks a bundle

Is your current body limiting you in some way?

If not why upgrade? If your happy with you XT save the money and get good glass, getting a newer body is just wanting a new toy.

Most of the image quality improvements have been at high ISO speeds. Since you are doing portraits outside I doubt you would benifit from a new body. Unless you are planning on making very large prints or do severe cropping the extra pixels wont make a difference to you.

A good lens is a good lens regardless of the body.

I dont have either lens you are considering but on my Rebel XT I certainly saw a dramatic difference when using good glass.

mrfixitx wrote in post #10181559
Is your current body limiting you in some way?

If not why upgrade? If your happy with you XT save the money and get good glass, getting a newer body is just wanting a new toy.

Most of the image quality improvements have been at high ISO speeds. Since you are doing portraits outside I doubt you would benifit from a new body. Unless you are planning on making very large prints or do severe cropping the extra pixels wont make a difference to you.

A good lens is a good lens regardless of the body.

I dont have either lens you are considering but on my Rebel XT I certainly saw a dramatic difference when using good glass.

Thanks for your insight, it was almost like you were talking through me lol.. cause i thought the exact things as I was typing out this post. I guess my thing was more like why put on a $2,000 suit with a $5.00 tie... Dumb comparison but i thought that my Rebel would likely not allow me to use the L lens, to it's Fullest ability.

Do you have to have the most expensive equipment, no. Will your clients be able to tell the difference in a quality photo taken by a Sigma or Canon, most likely not.

A couple of the major areas you will see a difference are in high ISO performance and if you want the really short depth of field and low light performance afforded by large f-stop lenses.
Those you will have to pay for. These tools allow you to create a different look with your photographs than the less expensive equipment will.

Well, only you can answer whether it's worth it or not...

I'll tell you... I faced the same thoughts last year when I finally splurged and got the 24-105L. Alot of $$, no doubt. I still don't know whether I'm convinced it's worth it or not. I'm Joe-Ameteur who happens to really have a strong interest in photography. Most of my shooting is my two little girls... surely don't have any aspirations ever to make any $ as a photographer.

That said, I think it really depends on 1) your financial condition, 2) the level of interest you have and how enduring that interest will be.

Is the image quality better? I went from a 28-135 to the 24-105 (similar move your're contemplating) and the answer is yes. Color and saturation seems richer as well. Is it worth the extra $$.... tough call. In my case, I think this is my walk-around lens I'll have forever and believe I'll continue to have a strong interest in this hobby for the rest of my life. That's how I justify it. Also, the used market for lenses is so deep that, frankly, if you do drop the interest in a few years, you can always sell it for probably 80-90% of its value anyway.

Again... can you really afford the hit (only you know) and how deep is your interest. If the answers are Yes and Absolutely, then why not... you live once. If not, then don't let this forum sway you the other way. This is not a "typical" sample of amateur photographers. Many here have spend $$$$$$ on stuff without batting an eye.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents.

prodigy photos wrote in post #10181519
I'm using a basic 18-55mm kit lens right now and a 50mm 1.8 nifty fifty.

Now I've been considering to get an L lens for my pictures, and have been pondering between

1- 24-105mm L
2- 24 -70m L

is there such a HUGE Difference between the Canon 24-70 and Sigma's 24-70..???

You will notice more of a huge difference from your 18-55 to the Sigma 24-70 then you will Sigma 24-70 to Canon 24-70L.

I would stick with a f/2.8 zoom since you are using crop, the 24-105 f/4 would be nice on full frame because you have more shallow DOF with the larger sensor.

When I put my 70-200L on my Rebel XTi I was like "wow! didn't know the camera could take pictures so good!" Given that you are outdoors and not needing high ISOs keep the XT and get more lenses. Also consider the 70-200L's, they are excellent for portrait photography.

Im in the same situation except for I have a sigma 17-70mm 2.8. The only way to find out if the 24-105L or 24-70L is worth it is to rent it out. You can get loads of advice but when it comes down to it, you have to test it out yourself.

prodigy photos wrote in post #10181571
Dumb comparison but i thought that my Rebel would likely not allow me to use the L lens, to it's Fullest ability.

On the contrary it'll allow you to get more out of your camera than with those 2 cheap lenses you now have. Put it this way, Canon puts out a new entry level Drebel every year, but how often are their high end lenses replaced? It can be 10 or 15 years between lens updates.

go for 5DII.....

thanks a bundle for the advice guys.. it's def opening doors to what i should do..

q;]

Looks like imma be forking up the $$$ for the 24-70 lol..