Camera/lens suggestions

[Already]

I had a canon EOS XS, I bought a superior seamless paper background, a tripod, and a remote. Finally last week I rented a light kit (Norman ML 600 monolights (2 lights)). This last time I did have the best pictures but I still had some blurry pictures but not many. Previously I couldn't get many pictures that weren't blurry. Now they weren't blurry but they weren't real clear either. When I returned the light kit I talked to a guy there that said, "the body is just a body, it's all in the lense". And that I need to spend a minimum of 400 on a lense to get clear pictures. I would like suggestions. I do not have a nice wallet, but if I have to spend that on a lense so the pictures will actually be clear.....so be it.

 

[Montana]

Have you totally eliminated user error? You keeping you shutter speed high? Properly exposing? Budget?

The 24-70 2.8 is a great lens. The 17-55 2.8 is a fantastic EF-S mount lens. There are many, what focal length you looking at?

The $90 50mm 1.8 is cheap and sharp.

 

[photogincollege]

Well, I have some good news for you. That guy at the store was basically talking out of his a** about the 400 part. Yes you need to have a good lens, but you can get EXCELLENT lenses for under 400. Mostly in primes. If you want some good prime lenses to look at
Canon | 50mm f/1.4 USM Autofocus Lens | 2515A003 | B&H Photo
Canon | Normal EF 50mm f/1.8 II Autofocus Lens | 2514A002BA
Canon | 85mm f/1.8 USM Autofocus Lens | 2519A003 | B&H Photo

All amazingly sharp, good quality lenses under 400. Well under if you go used.

 

[William Petruzzo]

50mm 1.8 is the cheapest you're going to come and it's strikingly sharp. But, whatever lens you're using should still be sharp. Most people can't even tell something isn't sharp unless they set it next to one that is. If you can tell outright that it's not sharp, I would guess it's something else.

If you must buy a new lens though, I'd jump for the 24-70 2.8 or the 50mm 1.8. Although there's about a $1000 gap in price there.

 

[Already]

I didn't get any notification on the replies......?

Have to look at the user CP again.

1. I think for focal length I am going to start with 35mm since ...back in the day when I did more it was with the tried and true 35mm film camera. (it seemed easier then) Maybe 50mm.

Here is my ignorance....primes? It's been a looooong time. I even had to look up focal length...wow that is cool. :blushing:

Yeah the last batch of photos is pretty good. I had to manually focus. I use the remote because I take bronchial dilators, in addition to prednisone now. (don't give me a knife!) They just don't look nice and clear as I think they should.

 

[photogincollege]

Primes are lenses that are a fixed focal length. They don't zoom. 35mm 1.8 50mm 1.8 85mm 1.8 etc.

 

[Already]

Ahhhh....yes. I think I'll start with a prime. I can tinker with a zoom later! And 50mm is probably idea. Thanks

Primes are lenses that are a fixed focal length. They don't zoom. 35mm 1.8 50mm 1.8 85mm 1.8 etc.

 

[djacobox372]

The "body is just a body" philosophy was more true in the days of film.

With a digital camera the "film" is also part of the body, and you'll never find a photographer that says that the film quality doesn't matter.

There's some truth that a "ZOOM" lens that costs less then $400 isn't likely to be that great, but there are some great prime lenses for far less then that.

 

[Josh66]

Ahhhh....yes. I think I'll start with a prime. I can tinker with a zoom later! And 50mm is probably idea. Thanks

Be careful... You might wind up getting addicted to primes, and the longer ones can be pretty expensive...

 

[tomhooper]

If you shoot portrait type shots another option is the Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro. It is a very sharp lens and can be used for portraits. It is one of the expensive primes though at around $450.00.

 

[Josh66]

If you shoot portrait type shots another option is the Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro. It is a very sharp lens and can be used for portraits. It is one of the expensive primes though at around $450.00.

Currently $490 at B&H (just looked it up for another thread a while ago).
I have this lens, and it is a great lens for portraits and macro work. Focusing might be a little slower than the 100mm f/2, but that's what you get with a macro lens.

 

[tomhooper]

Currently $490 at B&H (just looked it up for another thread a while ago).
I have this lens, and it is a great lens for portraits and macro work. Focusing might be a little slower than the 100mm f/2, but that's what you get with a macro lens.

I shoot mostly macro so I never use autofocus anyway. I have used it on occasion for a portrait type shot. It is really a nice lens and if you have a need for it, well worth the money.

 

[Already]

I returned this camera and I am looking at a nikon D90. Do you have suggestions for 50mm primary and a zoom I can use at baseball games? probably something like 100-200mm?

Well, I have some good news for you. That guy at the store was basically talking out of his a** about the 400 part. Yes you need to have a good lens, but you can get EXCELLENT lenses for under 400. Mostly in primes. If you want some good prime lenses to look at
Canon | 50mm f/1.4 USM Autofocus Lens | 2515A003 | B&H Photo
Canon | Normal EF 50mm f/1.8 II Autofocus Lens | 2514A002BA
Canon | 85mm f/1.8 USM Autofocus Lens | 2519A003 | B&H Photo

All amazingly sharp, good quality lenses under 400. Well under if you go used.