New lens or a new camera body?

[LawrenceChiu]

What do you guys think?
I currently have the Canon XSi.
I can either upgrade it to a T3i (know a person that is willing to sell a new t3i for $400) then I can use the remaining money to buy like battery grip, lighting equipment, etc.

Or just buy a 70-200mm f/4 NON-IS used.

What do you guys think?
I'm trying to focus on portraits. I currently using a 17-50mm f/2.8 Tamron lens.
Should I focus on buying lighting to improve my portrait taking style or 70-200mm to improve it? Both are pros and can't go wrong with.
But what do you guys think? Which one in you opinion more fun to try out? New lens or new lighting and camera?

 

[Mach0]

I don't know about canon too much but I'd get the glass first. However, if space is an issue, I'd reconsider. The 70-200 on your camera will prob have you needing to take the portraits from across the street( if indoors.) Outdoors, I'd get glass. Indoors, I would spend on lighting.

 

[Tony S]

The lens is your better choice for improving image quality over a new body.

Even lower end models of DSLRs tamake great images if you use good technique (with some exceptions like lower light levels) Better glass takes the good techique another level higher. Crappy teachnique with a quality lens will bring out your flaws more.

When faced with this choice I always opted for better glass before a body upgrade and have never regretted it.

 

[zamanakhan]

Hmm lighting is all about being creative, expensive lighting certainly helps but if u are creative you can get by with natural light and reflectors. I think everyone on the board would rather buy glass first than body, but there comes a time when purchasing a body helps a ton more, and can bring up your photography to a newer level. I too am unaware of canon's offerings so i cant offer you advise on the camera but on the lens:
You only need to be accross the street if you want a full body portrait, at 70-105ish you can get some amazing shots of shoulders up from perhaps 3-4 meters away. my 80-200 2.8 is my FAVORITE LENS along with a wide zoom, the focal length creates for stunning dof and bokeh from my lens is creamy as well. At f4 tho i would pass, maybe save up for the 2.8, especially with out IS. A better option, especially if you want to focus on portraits, would be to get an 85 1.8 or 50 1.4 along with a speed light reflector, umbrella and stand. I would take these over a 70-200 F4 anyday. On a crop sensor the 85 would make an awesome portrait focal length.

 

[lonewolfsx]

Well on the crop Xsi the 17-50 at the long end should be a pretty decent mid-range portrait lens (about 80mm equivelent).

Personally I'd suggest, if you want something a little longer, the Canon 85mm f/1.8 USM. It's cheaper than the 70-200 F/4. Don't get me wrong, the 70-200 F/4 is a fantastic lens but I think the depth of field is going to be a little too wide on a crop camera for really quality, seperated background portraits. You could make the DOF shallower by getting closer to your subject, but with a range of 70mm+ it's difficult to get the whole head and shoulders into the frame (I mean that 70-200 is cropped to something resembling 105-300 length). However 105mm isn't unheard of for portraits, I have an old Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 Micro that I think takes really good portraits, but on my "full-frame" film body.

Of course the 70-200 also has more versatility, like if you needed to shoot some daytime sports or other similar events requiring a medium telephoto zoom lens.
If you're set on a zoom lens, I can definitely recommend the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 HSM Macro, the older model without the stabilizer. I used one extensively when I was in high school for sports and well, anything they'd let me borrow the lens for. I even used it like a walkaround it was so awesome. Pretty sharp and really smooth background blur, I was super impressed. They go for about the same price Canon's F/4 version, but the 2.8 advantage is pretty awesome. I miss that lens, I'd love to pick up another but I'm not in sports anymore so I have to prioritize.

Also to be honest, the T3i isn't a humongous upgrade from the Xsi (about 6mp increase, and video... that's about it). I've been using an Xti since 2007 and I'm definitely feeling the urge to upgrade soon, but I wouldn't go for another rebel body, they just don't quite have the features I want.

 

[Jacobwilson]

Save up! I do portrait photography regularly. I had the Xsi for years until I upgraded to the 60D. While I was shooting, I upgraded all my lenses. I have the 70-200 f/4, and it doesn't get as much use as I thought. I never use it for portrait either.
Lights are great, but can be very expensive. I think your best bet is to go with new glass.
I'd recommend: 24-70mm 2.8, 50mm 1.4 (I have both of these and use them ALL the time. Great for portraits) and also an 85mm 1.8.
You can get some wicked shots out of the Xsi with any of these lenses. I think you'll be surprised.
Also I'd recommend saving more money and upgrading even further than the t3i. I did, and I'm so glad I did. I feel I'd regret not upgrading if I hadn't.

 

[jaomul]

As said the 70-200 lens though on my wishlist also may be limiting for indoor portraits but would be great outdoor at a distance.
Are you happy with the images you get with your current camera and tamron lens? If so your money may be better spent on a different lens such as the one mentioned. If you think your camera is slightly lacking the new body is the obvious option. Many will say that lenses before bodies as cameras do improve as time does on a new body will help improve the image quality, though maybe not much for portaits in a controlled setting. A t3i seems a bargain for the price you mention.

I disagree with the suggestion to get a 60D instead of the t3i. For portraits there should be little or no difference in picture quality. The 60d would be more of an option if the faster focus and tougher build are required

 

[Tony S]

So many times people think they need a new body upgrade when they have not even come close to reaching the capacity of what the camera they have can do. Very seldom does someone exceed the camera (they might like to think they do though) , usually it's more of wanting the latest/greatest thing instead of learning to make what they have work to the fullest potential.

The thinking goes along the line of it's a better camera so it should make better images and most long time photographers know that is not true.

 

[minooo]

you are right. I am a minilab manager, and I saw horrible pictures from the Nikon D40 kit lens.
But another day I saw unbelivable pictures from another client just using a great lens on D40.
Think about the fact that great digital images are being made since the first DSLR came out, and that first DSLR is far worse than you current body.