Canon T1I needs best portrait lens options!

kpixels · Dec 1, 2011

I have a T1i that I use for mainly outdoor portrait photojournalistic photography. I always have my EF 50mmf1.8 II on it. However, the cropping and the fact that I have to get super far to get a group shot is really getting to me...the images are not as sharp as I would like them to be because of the distance factor.

I am looking for a better portrait lens with zoom capability and I've been researching the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L, but im not convinced yet....Mainly because there is a lack of sample pictures found on the net with a T1i....

What do you think of the 24-70 and what other lens do you suggest? My budget is under $1300

Thanks!!!

GooniesNeverSayDie11 · Dec 1, 2011

24-70 is nice and probably covers a very useful family portrait focal length, especially if you want to go full-frame some day. The Canon 17-55 is pretty nice too but it is an ef-s lens. Other than being ef-s, I hear its on par with "L" glass in terms of IQ. Its pretty safe to assume that any L glass strapped to your T1i is going to make a pretty significant improvement over your 50mm f/1.8.

table1349 · Dec 1, 2011

kpixels said:
I have a T1i that I use for mainly outdoor portrait photojournalistic photography. I always have my EF 50mmf1.8 II on it. However, the cropping and the fact that I have to get super far to get a group shot is really getting to me...the images are not as sharp as I would like them to be because of the distance factor.

I am looking for a better portrait lens with zoom capability and I've been researching the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L, but im not convinced yet....Mainly because there is a lack of sample pictures found on the net with a T1i....

What do you think of the 24-70 and what other lens do you suggest? My budget is under $1300

Thanks!!!

Glass is glass. A 24-70 f2.8L is no different on a T1i than it is on a 1Ds MkIII. Your sharpness issues are not due to distance issues. Sharpness is a factor of glass quality, focus point and DOF. A large group by it's very nature needs a deep DOF to have everyone in focus. If the lens is sharp at a normal distance for a single subject, if used properly it will be just as sharp for a group of people.

I own the 24-70 f2.8 and love it, although for portrait work I tend to prefer prime lenses. They are sharper, they are faster when needed and give me razor thin DOF when I want it. Some people complain about a prime lens being too sharp for portrait work. In post production you can soften a very sharp image. You can not make a soft image sharper.

kpixels · Dec 1, 2011

do you prefer the 17-55 to the 24-70 for portraits? I know ive seen these compete with each other...Im hoping to make a purchase soon, but i dont want to miss out the better one!

GooniesNeverSayDie11 · Dec 1, 2011

Well typically with portraits you want to be at roughly 80mm or higher to avoid distortion. However, with group shots you need to go wider unless you want to stand far back. I would say the 28-80 would be best. It leaves your options open for full frame and 28mm is still pretty wide for a group shot if you back up just a hair. Its a fast high IQ lens, and I don't think you will really miss the IS very much unless you shoot in low light all of the time.

MLeeK · Dec 1, 2011

I prefer the 24mm or 28mm prime if you want to stick to primes for a group portrait on a crop sensor. If you are looking at zooms the 24-70 range would be my go to. Reason? When you get to the 17mm end of things you get barrel distortion. That's when light poles start to bend as you go up/down. I find myself getting into trouble with it often if I use my 17-50.
If the 24-70 f/2.8 is out of the ball park for you, Sigma makes a 24-70 f/2.8 that is about $900-$1000 and is OS-the equivilent to Canon's IS.
Tamron also makes a cheaper, excellent option in it's 28-75 f/2.8 which runs somewhere around $450 give or take.

chaosrealm93 · Dec 1, 2011

i think the 17-55 would be too wide for portraits. both for your distance to your subject and the fact that 17-55 is sort of a wide angle zoom. doesnt provide the most "flattering" look for your subjects

MLeeK · Dec 1, 2011

I really wanted to like that post by Chaos... BUT I have no LIKE anymore...
I have the 17-55 and I use it on my 7D/50D. I get into trouble in portraits and I am forever having to fix distortion in post processing from it. DRIVES. ME. CRAZY. Mostly that I STILL do it after all these years, but...

kpixels · Dec 2, 2011

Thanks everyone. I guess I should check those other brands out..i was weary to stray from the Canon line...

Im going to venture out and hopefully do weddings soon, and I hear the 24-70 is an awesome lens for that too...

I guess I just wanted to make sure my T1i would support those lenses to a good potential.

Another question...is there a big difference (besides cost) on the 70-200 and the version II? Can I settle for the older one? And will my T1i be ok? haha! That lens is huge. I hope to get a 5D throughout my journey...soon.

Village Idiot · Dec 2, 2011

I have a 24-70 I use on a FF camera. That being said, I felt that it was too long on the wide end when it was on a crop camera. The 17-55 may be your best bet and if you do one day upgrade to a FF camera, you can sell it for almost what you paid for it, especially if you buy it used.

Village Idiot · Dec 2, 2011

kpixels said:
Thanks everyone. I guess I should check those other brands out..i was weary to stray from the Canon line...

Im going to venture out and hopefully do weddings soon, and I hear the 24-70 is an awesome lens for that too...

I guess I just wanted to make sure my T1i would support those lenses to a good potential.

Another question...is there a big difference (besides cost) on the 70-200 and the version II? Can I settle for the older one? And will my T1i be ok? haha! That lens is huge. I hope to get a 5D throughout my journey...soon.

I have the 70-200 f/2.8L IS MKI and it's pretty damn sharp.

Overread · Dec 2, 2011

The 70-200mm f2.8 IS L was one of the top professional choices for a zoom lens in this range and has a good many years of solid performance behind it. It's certainly a very good option and more than sharp enough. The new MII version is a reworking and does provide an optical improvement - at the 70mm end its not that easy to tell them apart, but at the longer 200mm end the new MII is the sharper of the two.
It also sports a quieter and better IS which has 4 stops over the 2 stop IS of the original - though I should note that outside of putting your ear to the lens in a quiet room the IS of the original was never that loud to be a distraction.

Its really up to you and how much you feel you can invest as to if the difference is worth the cost to you. As a point I owned the original and then upgraded to the new - when selling the original the price it sold for was pretty much equal to what I paid for it new so its still a respected lens.

kpixels · Dec 2, 2011

Ok. I cant afford the new version, so id be ok with the old one...seems like its not too much to lose. Back to talking about other brands..I was checking out the Tamron 28-75...why is it so much cheaper than the canon, apart from the brand name?The Canon 24-70 is about 1300 on Amazon, is it worth paying the couple hundred more than the Sigma version?I hadn't even thought about going for another brand, simply because I am clueless as to the quality of them...but if they dont have many differences, and are respected as good lenses, when why wouldnt I but one of those instead?FYI...i need a lens for photojournalistic portrait and wedding photography for my T1i.