Lens for full body shots

I was doing head shorts in my house with 85mm. Now I have to do full body shots and I don’t have enough room to move back. I was thinking is there any zoom lenses that would do the job or prime. I would love a sigma 17-50 OS but my price range is more like a non OS used. Or is the sigma a bad choice for this type of work. Camera Body is an XSI.

15-85 should work

I'm sure it would but I need something cheaper. Like less then 500.

Sigma 30mm.

NJKEV wrote in post #14247336
I'm sure it would but I need something cheaper. Like less then 500.

Some people just don't bother reading the post to see what the budget is.

For under $500, I've heard good things about the Tamron 17-50. Although my preference would be an 18-55 kit lens and off-camera or bounced flash.

Cesium wrote in post #14247527
Some people just don't bother reading the post to see what the budget is.

For under $500, I've heard good things about the Tamron 17-50. Although my preference would be an 18-55 kit lens and off-camera or bounced flash.

Specifically, it's the "non-VC" version of the Tamron 17-50... that's got better image quality than the VC version (Vibration Control, Tamron's version of IS) and is within your budget. It's one of the most affordable f2.8 midrange zooms.

Canon 18-55 IS would be the least expensive choice. But it's relatively slow (f3.5-5.6, if memory serves) and a bit plasticky. After all, it's a kit lens.

The Sigma 30/1.4 and Canon 28/1.8 might work, too.

With any of the above, you have to be careful getting too close, especially with portraits. There will be perspective distortions (such as make a person's nose look big and their ears look tiny) plus anamorphic effects toward the edge of the frame (an exaggeration that can make an arm look oddly big or entire body look "stretched"). This is just the nature of wide angle optics when shooting with them close to the subject. A zoom might be worse than a prime lens, which are simpler optically so are more easily corrected, at least to some extent.

Canon or Sigma 50/1.4 would give more "true" perspective rendering and is less prone to edge distortions, but might not give enough working distance.

The fact is, if distortions are unacceptible, at some point a larger work space might be necessary in order to make the shots possible.

I would suggest a prime for portraits.. perhaps a 50mm or the sigma 30mm BryantFC suggested. If you are on crop, the 50 is actually really different from the 85 and really "zoomed out" too

If you are interested, I have an EF-S 17-85 that I have for sale. I haven't posted it here yet, but it is well within your budget although it's not as high quality of a lense as the 15-85 mentioned earlier. I am selling it because I bought a Sigma 17-50 OS.

If you are interested PM me and we can talk price. Very affordable.

If it'll work, I would recommend the sigma 30mm. If that's still too long, the tamron 17-50 Non VC would be an excellent choice.

My go-to lens in my small home studio is my Tamron 28-75 f2.8, which does a great job for me. It's sharp, produces nice colours and is well-built. At just over $300 used, it falls well within your budget. I've had mine for several years and really enjoy it.

Another vote for tamron 17-50 Non VC. I used to have it when I had a crop body.

17-40 L ... you can often get good deals on used ones ... mine is tack sharp and love it!

RustyHammer wrote in post #14253123
17-40 L ... you can often get good deals on used ones ... mine is tack sharp and love it!

I have to agree .. and it'll serve you well if you were to go FF later

You could use a 600mm prime for full body shots if you REALLY wanted to (you just have to stand about 1/2 mile away from the subject)

My Tamron 28-75 is great for outdoor portraits but I do find it can get tight indoors. The 17-50 would be better indoors. Its a VERY nice lens BTW (I have the nonVC)