Camera or Lens for Sharper Photos?

stephanesaurus · Dec 2, 2014

I've been thinking of upgrading my camera now that my photography has grown into a little business. I'm currently using a Canon Digital Rebel XTi with the EF 50mm f/1.4 and EF 15mm f/2.8 fisheye lens. Most of my work is in portraits using the EF 50mm f/1.4 lens, but I really want to take crisp photos with finer detail like my EF 15mm f/2.8 fisheye produces. I did pay nearly double for the fisheye, but can't figure out what makes the results so dramatically different when I compare their specs side by side.

If the EF 50mm f/1.4 lens is too weak, what's a good replacement that won't overpower for my 7-year old Digital Rebel XTi?

Or, would upgrading to a new body make a bigger difference? If so, what are some good models that are still in the range of my current lenses?

EDIT: I must have given the wrong impression that I'm talking about depth of field. I meant the actual sharpness in detail captured in the focused part of photo.

runnah · Dec 2, 2014

Sounds to me like the issue is with the user, no offense.

Are you trying to shoot photos at the f/1.4?
What is your shutter speed?

astroNikon · Dec 2, 2014

Provide sample photos with your aperture, shutter, ISO setups

but just because one has f/1.4 does not mean one shoots at f/1.4 if you are doing that, especially for portaits.
General portraits are generally done at f/5.6 or higher

The "faster" a lens aperture is the more shallow the depth of field .. or the more stuff will be out of focus. from a close proximity photoshoot.

runnah · Dec 2, 2014

astroNikon said:
The "faster" a lens aperture is the more shallow the depth of field .. or the more stuff will be out of focus. from a close proximity photoshoot.

Its more about the amount of light that is allowed in thus allowing for faster shutter speeds.

goodguy · Dec 2, 2014

I am not a pro photographer but I can tell you shooting portraits at f1.4 doesnt sounds very good for me, sometimes if you really want to get that great bokeh I guess it makes sense but most of the time my aperture is f4 and I still get that wonderful bokeh but I mostly use my 70-200mm 2.8 which I think also gives you a much better compression then a 50mm lens.
Personally for portraits I would get 70-200mm 2.8 and frankly a better camera too even though your XTi is still perfectly capable to produce good images, if this is your business I would consider getting the Canon 6D or Canon 5D III or maybe even move to Nikon and get the D610 or D750.
Of course its also a matter of money.
If you are really tight on cash consider getting a used 70-200mm 2.8 like the Sigma 70-200mm 2.8, solid sharp lens that is not expensive and will do a lot of good for this type of photography.

Good luck

Designer · Dec 2, 2014

stephanesaurus said:
I really want to take crisp photos with finer detail like my EF 15mm f/2.8 fisheye produces. I did pay nearly double for the fisheye, but can't figure out what makes the results so dramatically different when I compare their specs side by side.

Welcome!

You are describing the effects of a very narrow depth of field (or focus if you prefer). The DOF in your shots is razor thin, so you're getting only a couple of inches at the most in fairly acceptable focus. For most portraits, I should think you would want the person's entire head in focus at least, and maybe a little more, such as the shoulders, the bust line, the hair, etc., Your DOF needs to be more like 12-15 inches deep, not one or two inches.

Annnnddd.....

You're welcome.

Derrel · Dec 2, 2014

I've been doping some research in an effort to help out a fellow forum member, and the very scientific, exacting testing done by Roger Cicala at Lensrentals.com I think offers some insight. In his three-part series examining Canon cameras and autofocusing issues, her makes some observations. One thing that Canon itself has written about is that high-precision AF requires a LENS that has a high-precision autofocusing drive mechanism, and as Cicala mentions, the 50mm f/1.4 EF : "The Canon 50mm f/1.4 doesn't have a real USM motor and is known to be a bit difficult to focus." from LensRentals.com - Autofocus Reality Part 1: Center-Point, Single-Shot Accuracy

In the third part of his series at LensRentals.com - Autofocus Reality Part 3B: Canon Cameras he mentions some very technical, rather obscure facts about Canon lens autofocusing and camera-body AF advances, but the upshot is that 1) the 50/1.4 EF has a rather old, mid-1990's AF system design that is **not** high-precision, and 2) only the Canon 5D Mark III and Canon 1DX incorporate Canon's newest routines for high-precision autofocus. His tests are pretty interesting, and have results showing the standard deviation for a bunch of Canon bodies. Basically--the older camera bodies have high variation in AF accuracy/repeatability. The 1Dx and the 5D-III have very low deviation and focus significantly more-accurately, and more consistently, than older cameras.

If you read through the entire three-article set, you'll also see that SOME lenses focus VERY poorly on "some" camera bodies, and benefit hugely from microfocus adjustment tuning. It's possible that your 15mm lens is particularly well-matched to your camera body, and it's also possible that your 50/1.4 is particularly badly matched to your camera body; orrrrrrrr--there could be some other factors at play. We can't make any really solid guesses even, without seeing some photos, and knowing more about how you actually shoot your photos. I had an XTi a few years back, which I gave to my niece as a wedding present; it is a pretty outdated camera now. I think a 60D or 70D would be a really nice replacement for an older XTi. The advances in the 60D and 70D are really many in number, and those are slick, modern-style cameras, whereas the XTi has a pretty "old-style" feel.

stephanesaurus · Dec 2, 2014

Thanks to everyone for their replies and Derrel for the long post, which addresses some of my concerns. To answer some of the earlier posts, I don't always shoot at f/1.4 but was just wondering why a f/2.8 lens produced finer detailed images under the same lighting and aperture/shutter/iso.

goodguy said:
If you are really tight on cash consider getting a used 70-200mm 2.8 like the Sigma 70-200mm 2.8, solid sharp lens that is not expensive and will do a lot of good for this type of photography.

Thank you for your recommendation! I'll definitely check out the 70-200mm 2.8 lens.

astroNikon · Dec 2, 2014

Derrel said:
I've been doping some ...

I hope not. you're better than that Derrel

Derrel · Dec 2, 2014

astroNikon said:
Derrel said:

I've been doping some ...

Click to expand...

I hope not. you're better than that Derrel

Hah hah! I make a looooot of typos, Steve! I am a crappy typist! I did not see that boo-boo!

Overread · Dec 2, 2014

An additional thought. I don't know the age of the 15mm you are using, but the Canon 50mm f1.4 is an older design lens. As such whilst it is not a bad lens, it isn't as good as other more modern optics.

You might find that you could look at the Sigma 50mm 1.4 of which they now have two versions; both of which have ranked generally superior to the Canon and are much more modern offerings

JoeW · Dec 2, 2014

Certainly doesn't hurt to look at the body and the lens. But I'd argue that the factors that have the most impact on how "sharp" a picture turn out to be are:
1. Shutter speed (assuming you're letting in enough light.
2. Steadiness of the camera
3. Wide enough aperture (if you shoot at f1.6 or f1.8 then you'll see part of a person be in-focus and part begin to blur)
4. Focusing on the right target. Even if a lens has poor AF, you can focus manually. Since you don't appear to be shooting manual targets then this shouldn't be that much of an issue.

It is true that some lens may lose sharpness at the extremes (especially cheaper glass) but for most portraits, that shouldn't be an issue.

stephanesaurus · Dec 2, 2014

Overread said:
You might find that you could look at the Sigma 50mm 1.4 of which they now have two versions; both of which have ranked generally superior to the Canon and are much more modern offerings

That is a very affordable upgrade, but I don't see a huge difference looking at photo comparisons of both models. I may end up going with a new body because I see photos taken by Canon 50mm 1.4 that look miles better than my shots using the same lens.

Thanks for all of your help!