Lens recommendation

LKDesigns

It was recommended to me to buy a 10-22 lens as a good wide angle for portraits, etc. They are a little pricey to buy in the Canon brand to go with my camera (Rebel XTI), but I can't seem to figure out a comparable or generic brand of lens to use rather than spend over $600 on one.

Any recommendations would be helpful. I have a small business (portraits, etc.) and that is mainly what I would use it for.

Tommyboy

The Canon 10-22 is an outstanding lens. It is an unconventional choice for a portrait lens, however. I would suggest that it would be a superior choice for landscapes, architecture, cramped interiors, etc.

I'm pretty sure Tokina, Sigma, and Tamron make equivalent lenses. My vote would be for the Canon, but you'll get lots of other opinions here.

Can you expand on or clarify your intended use?

LKDesigns

I really am just beginning to get into my own photography business, and I mostly would like to be taking portraits of children & families. However we also do a lot of travelling and it sounds like the 10-22 would be great for that. For now, I am looking for more of a portrait lens - mainly in outdoor or natural light settings.

eyusuf

get tokina 12-24. used one can be had for 400-425 range. cheaper than canon but i think it is better than the highly-regarded canon 10-22.

for portrait lens, you can try 50mm f/1.4 or 85mm f/1.8, depending on your needs.

Tommyboy

LKDesigns wrote:

I really am just beginning to get into my own photography business, and I mostly would like to be taking portraits of children & families. However we also do a lot of travelling and it sounds like the 10-22 would be great for that. For now, I am looking for more of a portrait lens - mainly in outdoor or natural light settings.

There are a lot of considerations:

What camera are you using? (I'm going to guess a crop-sensor camera)
What is your budget?
What lens(es) do you already own?

Good portrait lenses would include:

EF 50mm f/14
EF 85mm f/1.8
EF 100mm f/2.8 macro
just to name a few. . . .

A good zoom lens that would offer a portrait range would include:

EF-S 17-85
EF-S 17-55

These lenses would give you both the wide-angle you seek (though not as wide as a 10-22) plus that length to take a good portrait. The 17-85 is a great all-around lens.

claudermilk

, yep for that class of lens I prefer the Tokina 12-24. It's about $150 cheaper & built more like a Canon L. Run a search to get lots of debates on the relative merits of the two.

However, that's not really the best type of lens for portraiture. These ultra-wides all have some distortion as they are nearly rectilinear fisheyes. For portraiture, I usually use my 24-70 or 50/1.8 and occasionally the 70-200.

eyusuf

i would go in a different direction to suggest tokina 50-135mm f/2.8 as the lens for portrait.
excellent lens but very underrated because it is not canon.

LiquidAir

If you are looking for a relatively low cost zoom for portraits, the Tamron 28-75/2.8 is a good choice. Its sharp, not too expensive, and nicely covers my favorite focal length range for portrait work on an APS-C body. However, if you often find yourself working in small spaces, 28mm may not be wide enough and the Tamron 17-50/2.8 could be a better choice. Both are well regarded lenes and are worth adding to your kit if you don't already have something comperable.

Canon sells similar lenses to the two Tamrons: the 17-55/2.8IS and the 24-70/2.8 but they are considerably more expensive. If you have the money, the 17-55/IS is definitely worth getting. The 24-70/2.8L built like a tank, but considerably larger and heavier than the Tamron 28-75/2.8. As such, my feeling is that the Tamron 28-75 is a better match for the Rebel series bodies.


Personally, I prefer primes for portraits. For individual portraits with our camera I'd suggest the 50/1.4, but if you mostly shoot tight headshots the 85/1.8 is a better bet. For environmental portraits and group shots something in the 28-35mm range would be best; I have the Canon 35/1.4 which is wonderful but also rather pricey. While I don't have any experience with them, you might look at the Canon 28, the Sigma 30 or the Canon 35/2 for a primes in this range.

eyusuf

the much more expensive 24-70 also has QC problem..many got this lens and found out that it doesn't focus properly

pourmeaguinness

From my personal experience, Tokina have the most consistent quality control.

ziggy53

Lindsay,

I cannot recommend a superwide zoom for "any" sort of normal portraiture.

As many have pointed out, traditional portrait lenses allow sufficient distance between the camera and the subject to keep the relationship of facial features close to what most people consider "normal".

I note from your profile that you use a Canon XTi. I believe a good, general purpose zoom lens for that body would be, in this order:

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM
Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR DI-II LD Aspherical (IF)
Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC Macro

These lenses would allow wide-angle to moderate telephoto on the XTi and sufficient focal length with enough aperture variation for many portraiture situations.

jdryan3

eyusuf wrote:

the much more expensive 24-70 also has QC problem..many got this lens and found out that it doesn't focus properly

What was the QC problem yours had?

claudermilk

I'd like to hear, too. There's a lot of hearsay bashing of this lens. While my sample set is quite small (two copies), both were excellent. A number of the people I saw directly knocking the lens had a habit of doing so to every lens--who needs 6 copies of the 24-70, 4 copies of the 70-200, etc to find a "good one"? It gets to the point I suspect there's some personal agenda behind the posts, and start pulling out the bags of salt.

When used wide open the lens is definitely not at it's sharpest, things improve a whole lot just by stopping down one stop or so. But, when you need f2.8, nothing slower will do and it sometimes is the difference between getting the shot or not. Honestly, there seemed to be a feeding frenzy last year on bagging on this lens for some reason; back when I was looking it had a stellar reputation that is only recently tarnished.

eyusuf

jdryan3 wrote:

What was the QC problem yours had?

focussing problem mate. front-back focussing, not sharp wide open.
it is true that wide open, a lens is not as sharp as it is stopped down. however, for the price one is paying, the lens should perform better than a cheaper third-party lens..:)
my tamron 28-75 is a clear winner at f/2.8. how does that sound?..:D $300 lens vs $900

and it is not lens-bashing..it is just the fact. my point is for a lens that expensive (and that good, at least on papers) it should have better QC.

eyusuf

claudermilk wrote:

When used wide open the lens is definitely not at it's sharpest, things improve a whole lot just by stopping down one stop or so. But, when you need f2.8, nothing slower will do and it sometimes is the difference between getting the shot or not. Honestly, there seemed to be a feeding frenzy last year on bagging on this lens for some reason; back when I was looking it had a stellar reputation that is only recently tarnished.

i bought a fast lens to use it wide open. if i need a sharp lens stopped down then i just buy myself the infamous 18-55 f/3.5-5.6. this lens is really good when stopped down..:)

p.s. no hidden agenda here; just merely pointing out that the 24-70 has flaws and should have been better for the price one is paying.

good/bad lens = ratio of cost and performance.

p.s.2 this discussion has gone too far from the OP's question. i'll stop here and concentrate on the OP's concern.

claudermilk

Good enough. Nothing directed at you, just general observations of multiple postings from multiple sources over time. I also pay for the f2.8 to use it there--just some people seem to expect them to be as sharp at f2.8 as they are at f8.

Anyway back on topic. So in a nutshell: stick to normal to short telephoto lenses for most portrait work.

ian408

I don't see any votes for the 70-200 as a portrait lens.

But the longer focal length gives you a variety of options. Including nicer
bokeh and to be a little more removed from your subject and still get a great
close-up because the longer focal length has the effect of of putting your
subject more at ease using distance.

Just a thought.