i'm looking for a lens to use for studio portraits, i shoot w/ a canon xti. currently i use a cheap canon 35-80mm lens and it's ok, but i want something better and sharper out of the camera. i'd also like something i can use to walk around with, for everyday shots. i like my 50mm 1.8, it's nice and sharp, but i want something with range.

i've been looking at the canon 17-85 is or the 28-135 is.

any thoughts?

looking for opinions on either lens or to really make things confusing, any other suggestions? i'd like to stay under $300 & am trying to find either one of these lenses used.

thanks,
liz

Liz,
I've used the 17-55mm F2.8 IS; the 24-105mm F2.8 and the 28-135mm F3.5-5.6 IS and they're all pretty good lenses. Of the three, the 17-55 is the sharpest. I currently use the 28-135 IS for a couple of reasons:

1. it is sharp stopped down to F8.0.

2. it is a little soft wide open.

That means that for most show portraits -- which are taken at F8 and 1/200, I get sharp results. For most studio shots of people, I can open it up and get some nice "soft-focus" effects which are very flattering for skin. And again, in the studio, I can stop it down for dogs and get very sharp results.

If you can control your lighting, the relatively slow maximum aperture isn't a problem and outdoors the IS gives you a good 3 stops of hand-hold-ability. For the money, I'd go for the 28-135 IS. It's a much better lens overall than the 17-85 kit or 18-55 kit lenses.

Jim

Hey Liz,

Curiously, how much is the 17-55? The nice thing about it is that it is designed for the EF-s system. The problem with it is that it is designed for the EF-s system. I think that Canon is slowly pushing towards full frame. It may take 5 to 10 years for the prices to happen at all levels, but I think it will ultimately happen.

I own the 28-135 and it is a great, affordable lens. It plays my back-up to my 28-70L (which is coincidentally getting sent to Canon for cleaning this weekend). The IS is a nice feature, and it sure is sharp at F8.

The other alternative to think about is the Tamron 28-75 F2.8. At about 400 dollars, it is very affordable, and rates just below the 24-70 F2.8L for sharpness.

James

Liz, have you considered another prime? Are you looking at full length portraits or headshots? I don't shoot portraits a lot but the shots I get with some of my adapted lenses seem quite good to me. And a lot of these lenses cost well under your price range. The trade off is you have to manually focus.

I've been playing around with my youngest using a Contax Zeiss 100/2.0 lens and it seems to do a great job. I've got a Leica 90/2.8 and 135/2.8 I jsut picked up for $300 for both headed my way also. Can't wait to shake these out. But also a little google seaching will yield you lots of dirt cheap lens choices. In fact, for portraits some prefer a softer lens as more flattering. The EOS mount is very easy to adapt to a whole multitude of off brand quality glass. Here's a sample taken with my youngest sitting on the floor by an open window that provided the only light used, remember I am not a portrait shooter and this was just a quick grab shot. Good lighting and knowledgable technicue should yield even better results.



And here's a totally unedited 100% crop from a RAW File taken with the mentioned lens:


I should mention that this lens is in the $600 -$800 range for a used one but similiar lenses that are a bit slower (f/2.8) and just as sharp are plentiful. In fact my $200 Contax Zeiss 85/2.8 can easily give you comparable results.

I use the tamron 28-75 2.8 and have no complaints. I don't like what it does outdoors below about 5.6 or so but it is super sharp and great optics otherwise. And very affordable!

Liz,
you can get the 17-55 IS from KEH in Like New condition for around $919 and on the Buy & Sell portion of the Fred Miranda Forum for around $900.

I've bought a bunch of stuff from KEH and they always rate their equipment accurately and sell it clean and lubed.

www.keh.com.

Jim

thanks everyone for the replies.
$300 is the most i can do...i'd love to afford better glass, but i recently bought the 70-200L & that busted my lens budget for a LONG time. lol

i'd be using the lens for portraits, usually shoot around f9-11 for those, so that's where i would like the sharpest picture to be. the cheap canon i'm using now is ok, i get sharp results, but i want something better!

thanks,
liz

Hi Liz,

You can purchase the Tamron 28-75 used at B&H for $279. The condition of the lens is rated as a 9+. The cost, brand new, is for 379.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/284399-REG/Tamron_AF09C700_28_75mm_f_2_8_XR_Di.html

James

Liz,
here are two shots I took with the 28-135 IS. For portraits, it works great.



That shot was taken on location with 2 strobes at F8.0.



Shot in the studio at F8.0, 2 Alien Bee 400s.

I think this lens is ideal. It's as sharp as necessary stopped down; it's compact and easy to carry; it has IS which is a real benefit when you're shooting at 135mm (which is really 216mm on a crop body). And it's affordable.

BTW, how do you like the70-200?

Jim