$1500 budget - What Camera/Lens?

[DevinAllen]

I am ready to move up from my Canon Digital Rebel Xti. I am starting some semi-professional work mainly doing portrait studio shots and senior pics. Current lenses are:
Canon 18-55mm kit lens (rarely used)
Canon 50mm/f1.8
Canon 85mm/f1.8
Canon 70-300mm/f 4.5 - 5.6
I am budgeting $1500 for my next purchase and have settled on the Canon 50D (~$1,000 for body). Question is what lens would any of you recommend? I've seen some nice package deals online. One has the EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS. Another has the EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM. Another option is to sell my xti and put that money into a lens, possibly bumping me up to the $1800 range for camera and lens. I'm looking to increase clarity and sharpness in my portait work. Any help is appreciated.

 

[Josh66]

One has the EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS. Another has the EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM.

These lenses are not an upgrade from what you have, and IMO, you shouldn't even waste your time looking at them.

$500 is not much for a lens budget. You're looking a one lens, most likely one prime. (With a few bucks left over.)


If it were me - I'd keep the body you have and upgrade your lenses first. You really only have one "good" lens (the 85). That 50 is OK, from what I hear - but by all accounts, the 1.4 is miles better.

$1500 would be a petty good start for lenses, assuming you go with primes. Zooms will eat that budget up fast.


If you want better clarity & sharpness, get better lenses. If you get a new body, and still only have the lenses you have now (+1), you will not notice a huge difference in picture quality...

Take that 85 compared to you kit lens - for example... Much better right?
What if all of your lenses were that good or better?

 

[KmH]

I'm looking to increase clarity and sharpness in my portait work. Any help is appreciated.

I completely agree with Josh.

An increase in clarity and sharpness will come from better glass and possibly improvements in camera handeling technique, not from upgrading the camera body.

 

[Hamtastic]

That 50 is OK, from what I hear - but by all accounts, the 1.4 is miles better.

I've got both. I like the DOF scale on the f/1.4, and the build is much nicer, but if anyone is seeing a mile of difference in image quality then there is something wrong with the f/1.8 lens. The cheapo fantastic plastic 50 outperformed every Canon L zoom it was tested against when it came to resolving fine detail in a Peterson's Photography lens shootout a while back.

I would keep the camera and lenses you have, and spend the $1500 on lighting. The cheapest, crap lenses today are much sharper than is needed for portrait photography. No one wants to see the hairs on their face and every tiny line and wrinkle anyway. If you are getting unacceptably soft images either your lenses are lemons or you need to work on technique. A 3 light set up used properly will give you amazing clarity.

 

[Big Mike]

I agree with what has been said. Your money will be better spent on lenses or lighting. Unless there is something specific that your camera can't do, that a new one would.

That being said, if you are going to do work for money, you should have backup equipment, so another camera body should be in the plans at some point.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

if you're mainly doing portraits, you should at least wait until you can get a 5D.

 

[pbisfun]

That 50 is OK, from what I hear - but by all accounts, the 1.4 is miles better.

I would keep the camera and lenses you have, and spend the $1500 on lighting. The cheapest, crap lenses today are much sharper than is needed for portrait photography. No one wants to see the hairs on their face and every tiny line and wrinkle anyway. If you are getting unacceptably soft images either your lenses are lemons or you need to work on technique. A 3 light set up used properly will give you amazing clarity.

I agree

If your main goal is to take good Portraits I would keep the camera you have and focus on Lighting and props for your studio, this will give you more options for creating different looks and will take your portraits to the next level. I shoot with the Canon 50D, and I just bought the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 I love the lens fast focus and very sharp, but on the other hand my Canon 55-250 takes great pictures all so at ¼ the price. I can’t tell the difference unless I do a major crop, but my wife has a better eye for detail and she can tell the difference. I think you will get more use out of buying Mono lights, barn doors, snoots, Boom, color gels, reflectors. and Different size softbox, can't for get a gray card. It all about creativity most people forget this and focus on camera equipment. Focus on building creativity and the money will come in faster then a new lens.

 

[DevinAllen]

Thanks for all the great feedback, everyone. So, what lens would any of you recommend in the $1200 range? Should I look at off-brands like Tamron or Sigma or stick with Canon? I'm thinking something along the lines of 18-70mm or 28-80. Any thoughts are appreciated.

 

[Big Mike]

Sigma & Tamron do make some pretty good lenses. It really should be looked at, on a lens by lens basis, but for the most part, a top of the line Sigma/Tamron is going to be about 80-90% as good as a top of the line Canon/Nikon lens....but the Sigma/Tamron is usually about half the price.
So, for many people, the Sigma/Tamron is a great deal....but some people are more than willing to pay twice as much for that last 10% of quality.

If you want to get the most image quality for you dollar, then prime lenses are usually a good bet. Your 85mm F1.8 is ideal for portraits...as long as you have the space to work. The 50mm should be pretty good too.
Where you kit is lacking, is in the wide end...as the 18-55mm is a weak link. If you want to replace that lens, I'd suggest looking at the EF-S 17-55mm F2.8 IS, or the Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 or Sigma 18-50mm F2.8.

Your telephoto lens isn't the best either, so if you were thinking of replacing that, there are several good 70-200mm lenses to choose from. My favorite lens is my Canon 70-200mm F2.8 L IS, but it was expensive. Canon makes three other versions, (F4, IS or non IS) and Sigma & Tamron both make an F2.8 version.

The more I think about it, you would probably be OK with your 85mm & 50mm lenses (for shooting portraits anyway) so you might consider investing in some lighting. Maybe an off-camera flash kit. Something like THIS.

 

[pbisfun]

well if you have 1200 to spend and are looking at a standard zoom lens I go with the 24-70mm f/2.8L or the 24-105 f/4L IS. one of the things about having a constant F stop is you are not having to adust for lighting every time you zoom in and out.
Personally I would go with a telephoto zoom the 70-200 it a great portrait lens you can get it for 1300 at B&H

 

[pbisfun]

The more I think about it, you would probably be OK with your 85mm & 50mm lenses (for shooting portraits anyway) so you might consider investing in some lighting. Maybe an off-camera flash kit. Something like THIS.

I totaly agrea with Big Mike

 

[Early]

Six of one, etc....

If you're going semi professional, a second body sure wouldn't hurt. And neither will a good light set up. If your 18-55mm kit lens isn't up to par, then a wide prime of at least 24mm will also come in handy.

 

[ironsidephoto]

READ THIS

Lens or Camera: A Guide for the Budget Minded

 

[mwcfarms]

That was a great article link thanks.

 

[ironsidephoto]

No problem. Ken Rockwell focuses on Nikon, but even if you don't shoot Nikon, his articles are first class and are usually super helpful.