Best Studio Lens for Canon EOS Rebel xT?

[soupman]

I believe my EFS 18-55mm, F 3.5/22 lens that came with my camera is producing poor quality studio photos when I am in a low-light condition. Since I am a beginner at studio photography, I am guessing. The daylight photos are very sharp and I can enlarge them significantly and crop them with little loss in sharpness. The same goes if I take more hi-key photos in my basement studio. But as soon as I try to take low-key or lower light photos, I am never happy.

After some research, I think I found the lens I would love: Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L EF USM Lens. But, it cost more than my camera did. Sonic Camera offers it at an unbelieveable $899. (but thanks to RFS and a post he had in G1, I went to Compare Prices, Store Reviews and Ratings by Real People and read the reviews for them and I think I will skip on their service). So, the real going rate seems to be $1,139 at most of the dealers.

I looked at similar lenses at Sigma and Tamron and their lenses are more than half as expensive as the Canon lens above. I am typically one of those crazy guys who will spend the extra dollars for the quality. But in this case, I am not sure. I do know I am not happy with the low-light portraits I am taking and I want to do something about it.

I found the following lenses:

1. Sigma Zoom Wide ANGLE-TELEPHOTO 17-70MM F/2.8-4.5 DC Macro Autofocus Lens $327-$389
   
2. Tamron Zoom Wide ANGLE-TELEPHOTO AF 28-75MM F/2.8 XR DI Autofocus Lens $349-$368
   
3. Sigma Zoom Wide ANGLE-TELEPHOTO 24-70MM F/2.8 EX DG Macro DF Autofocus Lens $364-$429

These lenses all look like they will perform well in low-key lighting with F/2.8. But, I have no experience with any of these brands. Since I am not a professional photographer and probably will not ever enlarge a photo beyond say 30" X 40", will these lenses work?

Now after writing this I am wondering if I am throwing money at a problem I should be able to fix with what I have? I am pretty sure I am not the only one frustrated with the options.

I appreciate your thoughts and experiences going through what I am considering now.

Thanks

[RSStory]

I can only speak of the sigma lens you mention. I bought it and I sold it... Was very soft. My camera sales person told me to look at Tamaron or Tokina I think. But the canon is a a great lens. If you can afford it I would go that way. It will be the sharpest . Now, I shoot all prime lenses in the studio. My canon 85mm 1.8 lives on my camera now. Sharp as a tack. Canon primes are great.

[soupman]

I love the idea of having an asortment of prime lenses but the costs to have a good assortment pushes me to a telephoto. Also, I find it much more convienent to zoom in and out as I am taking the photos. Especially with the kids. They have little patience to watch me change lenses.

Thanks for the feedback on Sigma.

[RSStory]

Actually you can get the 50mm 1.8 the 85 1.8 and the 100mm 2.8 macro and still spend less then that canon 24-70. The other trade off is that prime lenses are going to be sharper then even the canon L series telephoto lenses. I wouldnt shoot portraits with anything smaller then my 50 most the time and ususally use the 85. I am shootin a 2 year old this afternoon and that will be the lens on the camera.

[PhotosbyChuck]

My experience with Sigma and Tamron is pretty much the same as Scott's -- I found them to be soft and at the time slow focusing. However, that was many years ago and I'm sure they've made improvements.

I use the 24-105 f/4L IS for nearly all studio work. I really can't say enough good about it. I am really happy with the lens. It's about $1,000 though -- so that too is maybe more than you want to spend. It's also a half stop slower than 2.8, so that's something to consider if you're extremely low light.

In favor of the lens, it's a Canon L series..which means it's very well built and the lens elements are coated for low aberration. If you know what the coating does, please forgive me...but as light passes through glass, some of that light is reflected back. Not too much of a deal aside from the light loss on the outer element, but it becomes a problem inside the lens where elements "bounce" reflections back and forth. It comes out as softness...the lens doesn't appear as sharp. Sigma makes a low aberration coated lenses, although you didn't list them. Look for "APO" in the lens model.

The IS functionality adds that half stop back and more.

I notice that your first Sigma lens listed is not a constant aperture. That's fine as long as you know it and can work with it. But since you stated after your list, "These lenses all look like they will perform well in low-key lighting with F/2.8," I wanted to point that out to you in case you missed it.

Good luck! I look forward to seeing your shots!

[soupman]

Thanks for the information. I did not understand the low aberration coating , but your explanation makes perfect sense. I also was not aware the Sigma lens was not a constant aperature.

The adage "You get what you pay for." is ringing true here...but I was hoping that the lenes would perform well enough. But I would be very unhappy if I experience soft prints because of the lens.

I just have to recognize that I have an expensive hobby.

Thanks!

[r_fredrick_smith]

Originally Posted by PhotosbyChuck

My experience with Sigma and Tamron is pretty much the same as Scott's -- I found them to be soft and at the time slow focusing. However, that was many years ago and I'm sure they've made improvements.

I use the 24-105 f/4L IS for nearly all studio work. I really can't say enough good about it. I am really happy with the lens. It's about $1,000 though -- so that too is maybe more than you want to spend. It's also a half stop slower than 2.8, so that's something to consider if you're extremely low light.

In favor of the lens, it's a Canon L series..which means it's very well built and the lens elements are coated for low aberration. If you know what the coating does, please forgive me...but as light passes through glass, some of that light is reflected back. Not too much of a deal aside from the light loss on the outer element, but it becomes a problem inside the lens where elements "bounce" reflections back and forth. It comes out as softness...the lens doesn't appear as sharp. Sigma makes a low aberration coated lenses, although you didn't list them. Look for "APO" in the lens model.

The IS functionality adds that half stop back and more.

I notice that your first Sigma lens listed is not a constant aperture. That's fine as long as you know it and can work with it. But since you stated after your list, "These lenses all look like they will perform well in low-key lighting with F/2.8," I wanted to point that out to you in case you missed it.

Good luck! I look forward to seeing your shots!

First, a fast clarification, the Canon 24-105 F4 L lens is a fabulous lens and since its IS, that makes it even more attractive. It is a wonderful studio lens. Note: The difference between f2.8 and f4 is 1 stop, not 1/2 stop.

Second, my normal studio lens for shooting portraits and general glamour is (hold your breath), a Sigma 18-125 3.6-5.6 DC. I have had great results with the "cheap" lens. I also have the Canon 50mm 1.8 and the Canon 100mm 2.8 (macro). But still I almost always use the Sigma for studio work. It has been a real workhorse lens. I shoot both highkey and lowkey and I've not found a problem with either. Unless someone just has a bad copy of a particular lens, it is usually poor lighting and technique and not the lens that causes the problems. I always suggest that before throwing money at a lens, go to one of RG's workshops and shoot some shots in both lowkey and highkey and then work with Rolando at the workshop to check out whether its you or the lens.

See my short lowkey tutorial which I shot with the Sigma lens

Lighting - lowkey - 1 photo tutorial

Cheers,
rfs

[PhotosbyChuck]

Originally Posted by r_fredrick_smith

First, a fast clarification, the Canon 24-105 F4 L lens is a fabulous lens and since its IS, that makes it even more attractive. It is a wonderful studio lens. Note: The difference between f2.8 and f4 is 1 stop, not 1/2 stop.

Yep, yep! Thanks. (technically, it's less than a full square root of 2 above 2.8, which is why I threw the 2/3 out there...but I shouldn't do that since it's considered a full stop on the scale).

[soupman]

Well, I wasted little time and visited my local camera store and purchased the Tamron28-75mm F/2.8 XR Di LD lens. I cost $389 and allowed me to purchase a significantly better tripod (Manfrotto), a Wacom 6" X 8" model 630 tablet (loaded with software) and some other smaller things.

I tried the lens on my camera and it felt great and worked well (in th store). I'll see how it works out for me in the studio.

I agree, most of the problem is probably my inexperience, but I can shake how light the lens the came with the camera is and how poorly it performs in low light.

I am keeping my fingers crossed.

[r_fredrick_smith]

Originally Posted by soupman

Well, I wasted little time and visited my local camera store and purchased the Tamron28-75mm F/2.8 XR Di LD lens. I cost $389 and allowed me to purchase a significantly better tripod (Manfrotto), a Wacom 6" X 8" model 630 tablet (loaded with software) and some other smaller things.

I tried the lens on my camera and it felt great and worked well (in th store). I'll see how it works out for me in the studio.

I agree, most of the problem is probably my inexperience, but I can shake how light the lens the came with the camera is and how poorly it performs in low light.

I am keeping my fingers crossed.

I played with the Tamron28-75mm F/2.8 XR Di LD lens for about 1 month. It was a fantastic lens. Since I found that I often need a longer lens, I ultimately returned it and got a Sigma 70-200 F2.8 (at twice as much money). But for the normal portrait and full length range, the Tamron28-75mm F/2.8 XR Di LD lens is one of the really great lens. Very sharp, fast, easy to use. I'll try to dig out some of the photos if you want to see some samples.

Cheers,
rfs