Quote Originally Posted by realityinabox
So really, ideally, I'd have about an extra $1,000 to spend, I'd get a 5D1 and a 24-70L and be a happy camper. Problem is, I'm over $1,000 short.

Hihi....I know how that feels [A]


Well yeah now I remember your other post. I suggested to get a great basic gear and was voting for the 17-55. But if you're so serious about going full-frame, this wouldn't be the best option. By the way that lens has increased in price enormously the last 6 months...wow... It is even higher priced than the 24-105 in BULK[:O] and you wouldn't even get a lens-hood with it [:@]


Quote Originally Posted by realityinabox
24-105, the f/4 might be too slow to get good OOF isolation, and I hear (and see) that the bokeh isn't all that pleasing.

I personally like it a lot and I've seen great shots made by it (by other people). I still remain with my advice by getting your basic gear right. If your sigma isn't performing you'll probably use it even less when buying any of the lenses you mention. I would just sell it.


If it still wouldn't fit your budget, the 70-200 starts to look better. I assumed you'd mainly use it for portraiture, but since your sigma isn't such a high-performer, you could also find yourself using a 70-200 for more general purposes. With great image quality. And you'd keep the Sigma for the times you need a wider field of view.


Anaother thought: With the 85mm you would find yourself wanting the same quality out of your general-purpose lens, but you can't get that and the 85mm would be to static to use as a proper general-purpose-lens. In that case you'd be better off with a zoom lens.


I hope I puzzeled you a bit [:P]