If You Had $1k

idoteech

Tax refund is coming in February, and I will have about 1k to spend on glass. I have a Canon T1i body, and I find it to be a very good body. I think I'd like to focus more on buying a solid lens. I have a Tamron 28-75 2.8. It is a great lens, but I'm looking for something more (aren't we all).

I shoot 70% studio portraits using alien bees and the other 30% is outdoor portrait work. My main clientel is newborns and children, although I will be shooting a lot of Seniors in the next couple of months.

My studio is not very big (a 16x20 building), so focal length could be an issue. With that said, I need to know what my best option would be regarding glass. I have great strobes, tripod, modifiers, etc. so I'd like to focus on glass.

Suggestions appreciated!

Happy New Year!
Eva
www.ablazestudios.com

run_kmc

Everyone is different. It might be worth it to rent or borrow a few lenses for a few shoots in order to know how best to spend your money. Try one shoot with an 85mm, the next shoot with a 135… etc. With one exception, every lens I thought would be my favorite has been surpassed by something else.

I would suggest something longer, at least 85mm, probably more like 135mm. Even in a smaller space, you can still use it for headshots/head & shoulders.

ThatCanonGuy

A 70-200? The f4 IS version or the 2.8 non-IS version would take up your whole budget. You could try the f4 non-IS. Or, some primes like the 50 1.4, 85 1.8, 100 f2, 135 f2, etc. The 135 f2 takes up all of your budget but the first 3 primes cost about 1K total.

divamum

I can spend other people's money beautifully....

Do you have a 50 prime, eg the 50 1.4 either in its Canon (~400) Sigmalux (~500) incarnations?

The 85 1.8 (and its sibling, the100 f2) is a terrific portrait lens and only about $400 new. Sigma has also just released a Sigmalux 85 1.4 - I don't know much about it (haven't seen any reviews yet), but if it's good it could be a great addition that would suit your circumstances extremely well.

The 100L 2.8IS macro is about $1k I think - that's actually a potentially good choice since it adds macro capability, is a great length for portraits, and even though maximum aperture is only 2.8, it has IS which is always a bonus (and 2.8-4 on a 100mm is gorgeous for useable shallow dof portraits) There's also a mkI without is which sells on the used market for about $600.

As everybody here knows I'm gaga about my 135L - not sure it would be a good focal lenggth for newborns though sincd you'd have to work at a distance. For outdoor portraits it's glorious, however. Frankly, I use mine in absurdly tight spaces just because I love it so much, but it can sometimes be awkward (which is when I switch to my 50mm 1.4 )

The 70-200's are great, but they're pricey - yes, you could get the F4 as TCG suggests, but I know that I would find f4 limiting on a portrait lens, especially in natural light situations (or just where I wanted super-shallow depth of field). The 70-200 2.8is is many a portrait tog's workhorse, but it's outside your budget (and heavy). I love the results I see people get with it, but decided for the time being I'd go with the 135L instead - lighter, cheaper, and f2. Course, less versatile since it's not a zoom, but I can walk a step or two....

idoteech

Wow. Great replies. It gives me a lot to think about. I have used the nifty fifty and the 50 1.4. I would love to have something where i didn't have to move around so much, because with newborns I have to try to remain as quiet as possible, so I was hoping for something non-prime. But I also don't want to sacrifice quality.

Here are a few I took with the Tamron.

divamum

The Tamron seems to be serving you well, but if you wanted to upgrade that - either for faster AF or slightly better IQ (not that the Tamron is any slouch in that department!) - you could go for either the Canon 17-55is or 24-70L. It wouldn't really be an addition to what you already have though, and the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mantra may apply

idoteech

Thanks Diva. So would you recommend me keeping the Tamron for studio work and getting your fav 135L for outdoor work?

Art Scott

I would look to something like the 70-200 f2.8.......now know how pricey cam mfg'ed glass is
I would opt for a Sigma 70-200f2.8 without IS....or Tamron since you seem to already really like the tammy 28-75.........
But a 70-200 will be an ideal lens to add to the bag......

divamum

I generally use all my lenses in all situations as they seem to be needed, so I don't really think of them as "situation specfici". I've even been known to use the 135 in my living room (by standing OUTSIDE the door ) just because I thought it was the right lens for the job (I wanted extra compression and the "sparkle" it gives).

I have to say, that if I shot newborns I would probably seriously consider the 100L 2.8 macro since it could be really fun to use the macro capability for little hands, feet and lashes and it's a great length for portraits too; the mkII w/IS has been very well regarded since it was released last year (quite a few people here use it and will no doubt chime in with their opinions at some point). I love 100mm as a portrait length - I had the f2 (the sibling lens to the 85 1.8) and loved it; I only sold it to pay for the 135L and have regretted it ever since!! I love the 135, don't get me wrong, but the 100 was a very handy length for the way I shoot (some find it too long, but I liked it).

I think the suggestion above to borrow/rent the various contenders on the shortlist is a good one, since really it's only by using them that you can really tell what works for *you*. c

idoteech

Visiting borrowlenses.com right now. Taking great advice.

I will keep you posted.

Thanks guys!