Next Camera and Lens

kobistar

Hi Everybody,

I am thinking to buy my next generation camera and Lens.
I am studio photographer of maternity, newborn and family.
You can see my work in my web (not English) and Twitter (English).

I currently have 550D and 18-200 Tamron Lens.

I am starting to see that photos are not sharp enough.

What would you recommend me for next generation equipment?

Thanks a lot for your help!

Liorit

divamum

Budget? Do you want to replace the camera body, or just look for new lenses?

perroneford

1. Do you find yourself mostly at certain focal lengths inside that 18-200mm or do you need that full range?
2. Do you use strobe lights inside your studio
3. What is your budget for a new body?
4. What is your budget for a new lens?

Answering these questions will assist in helping you find something that will work well for you inside your budget.

kobistar

Hi,
For first cut lets assume that there are no budget limitations.
I am using the full range of 18-200 but I think that it affects the sharpness of my photos.
Generally my maximum range is around 6 meters from object and closest is 50 cm.

I am not sure I need to replace the body as I am not sure that it would have big affect in studio photography. Am I wrong?

Would appreciate your good advice.

perroneford

I'm not so sure you need to replace the body either, though going to a better body, especially a full frame, would yield improvements...

But talking lenses only...

Buying the 24-70/2.8L II and the 70-200/2.8L II would move you into the big leagues. If you can't make pro level images with that glass, it's not the glass!

A lot of people will tell you to go with primes. And they DO have advantages. But for working with babies I'd take the zoom every time. Speed is of the essence. You'd still need something on the wide end if you REALLY use focal lengths below 24mm. Maybe a 17-35 or even a prime.

But all of this is conjecture until you tie a budget to it.

kobistar wrote: »

Hi,
For first cut lets assume that there are no budget limitations.
I am using the full range of 18-200 but I think that it affects the sharpness of my photos.
Generally my maximum range is around 6 meters from object and closest is 50 cm.

I am not sure I need to replace the body as I am not sure that it would have big affect in studio photography. Am I wrong?

Would appreciate your good advice.

chrisjohnson

The style of your photos seems to value sharpness and detail highly. If you don't already own a prime I would indeed start there - perhaps the EF 100 L macro. This would cover your 6 metre range on a 550 right now and enable you to work closer too. When, as I suspect, you move to a Full Frame camera the 100 will stay with you.

I think you will see a big improvement just from the lens, although your portraits are already good. I never used the Tamron but I cannot imagine that an 18-200 is built for sharpness, rather more for flexibility - it does not sound like a quality piece of glass although, as you demonstrate, it does work.

jmphotocraft

Well if budget is no issue the answer is the 70-200/2.8LIS II, the 24-70/2.8L II, and the 5D3. Done. If that would cause pain, you can wait a little while to get the 5D3, or get the 6D.

jonh68

Your safest and cheapest experiment is to get a used 50 1.8 and see how that goes. If you like the results better then move on to other glass. What f-stop are you using? I use my nikon 18-200 sometimes at the f8-f11 range with strobes and it is hard to tell a big difference with better glass as that is the lens sweetspot.

divamum

If you're shooting in-studio with good light and don't usually "need" 2.8, go for the 70-200 F4. It is as sharp as its (HEAVY) 2.8 sibling - perfectly sharp and clean wide open at f4, no problem - and it's not only much, much, lighteter, it's also much, much cheaper. I really enjoyed shooting portraits with mine and only sold it to get the 2.8is II because I *do* use 2.8 a lot of the time (shooting adults, not kids!); I still miss the f4, as it is about 1/4 the weight of the 2.8 model. There's an F4is which I gather is as good, so if IS is important to you, that's still an option.

In the standard focal length zoom for a crop camera, go for the 17-55is - no competition if you don't have budget constraints (for a cheaper option ,the Tamron 17-50 would be your best bet). Not only less than half the price of the 24-70, but it also has is. No brainer until/unless you move to full frame.

A 50mm prime on a crop sensor is also lovely for portraits, although I'd go with the 1.4 (or Sigma 1.4 version) rather than the 1.8 - the optics on the 1.8 are fabulous, but it is slow to focus, and sounds like a buzzing bee (it is NOISY). Since money is no object, let's cut to the chase and jump to the 1.4 versions. The 85mm 1.8 is also lovely (although I find I prefer that focal length for portraits with full frame - use it way more now than I did on my 7d)

As far as a body: you probably will benefit more from glass than a new body, but a newer body may be something you enjoy as well. The 70d (best crop camera Canon has produced since the 7d, IMO) would definitely be a BIG step up and give you customisation and other options you don't know you want until you have them in hand. If you want to go to full frame, the 6d would be the obvious (and relatively affordable) choice.

My own choices for what you shoot would probably be a 70d + EFS 17-55is 2.8 + 70-200 F4 is (+ a fast prime - either 50mm or 85mm - could be added when budget and interest allow, as the zooms would keep you happy for quite some time)

Good luck deciding!