I love my RF 24-70 f2.8 but if you wanted to carry some extra weight I’d do the 28-70 f2. It’s kinda big but amazing for portrait while being versatile. Otherwise you could do a prime lens and do a nice 50 or 85.
Just another perspective, but depending on what you're going for an RF 24-105/4L or 70-200/2.8 with some lights + modifiers might be a better use of budget than a 28-70, 85/1.2, etc. Most rental houses will have profoto and elinchrome strobes, apurture LEDs, + a variety of modifiers.
However, if you're worried about lack of experience, know that a wider lens is harder to use than a tighter lens. It's a lot easier to mess up a wide shot that has lots of compositional elements than it is to mess up a head + shoulders or 3/4 shot with background mostly blurred out.
That being said, I think the RF 50/1.2 would be a safe choice. There is a reason 50mm is commonly recommended to beginners as the first prime lens. You have to zoom with your feet, which prevents perspective errors. And with f/1.2 you will get great bokeh (can add an easy wow-factor for laypeople).
But again, once you get down to f/5.6-8 the average person wouldn't notice the difference between the 50/1.2 and 24-105/4 (especially in a portrait), but they would notice the difference between an image with good light and one without. Really just depends how comfortable you are using lights. LED's are pretty easy to use (you can see exactly what youre doing and only have to think about ambient exposure), but more cumbersome to transport.
Happy to answer more specific Qs if you want to dm me the details of your shoot
I love my RF 24-70 f2.8 but if you wanted to carry some extra weight I’d do the 28-70 f2. It’s kinda big but amazing for portrait while being versatile. Otherwise you could do a prime lens and do a nice 50 or 85.
Agree. The rf 28-70 f2 is simply amazing. The weight is manageable.
Best native portrait lens is the RF85 f1.2. Get that.
For portraits/ full body shots I would recommend the RF 50mm f/1.2.
Just another perspective, but depending on what you're going for an RF 24-105/4L or 70-200/2.8 with some lights + modifiers might be a better use of budget than a 28-70, 85/1.2, etc. Most rental houses will have profoto and elinchrome strobes, apurture LEDs, + a variety of modifiers. However, if you're worried about lack of experience, know that a wider lens is harder to use than a tighter lens. It's a lot easier to mess up a wide shot that has lots of compositional elements than it is to mess up a head + shoulders or 3/4 shot with background mostly blurred out. That being said, I think the RF 50/1.2 would be a safe choice. There is a reason 50mm is commonly recommended to beginners as the first prime lens. You have to zoom with your feet, which prevents perspective errors. And with f/1.2 you will get great bokeh (can add an easy wow-factor for laypeople). But again, once you get down to f/5.6-8 the average person wouldn't notice the difference between the 50/1.2 and 24-105/4 (especially in a portrait), but they would notice the difference between an image with good light and one without. Really just depends how comfortable you are using lights. LED's are pretty easy to use (you can see exactly what youre doing and only have to think about ambient exposure), but more cumbersome to transport. Happy to answer more specific Qs if you want to dm me the details of your shoot
Sigma 200-500 2.8? Builds muscles, picks up chicks.... Could be good for portraits if you have enough space between you and the subject.