What should my next lens be?

Right now I use my nifty fifty the most but really looking for a lens with better quality. I do this only as a hobby (along with a few other hobbies that brake the bank ) so I make no money what so ever on photography, therefore I am looking for a lens that is around $300-$400 range but will be a noticeable improvement from what I already have. I will be using it to take more pics of my children/ take pics for my friends (again do not charge). So looking for a better portrait lens

I also have a 55-250 STM and 18-55

I was looking at the Canon 85mm 1.8 canon? But open to thoughts/opinions.

http://shop.usa.canon.​com …85mm-f-18-usm-refurbished

Here is my flickr account so you can see what I take for pics now

https://www.flickr.com​/photos/127211469@N03/


Thanks!

Honestly, after looking at your Flickr, I think you're doing better with what you have than many do with much more costly equipment.

Are you able to articulate exactly what improvements you're looking for?

neacail wrote in post #17946798
Honestly, after looking at your Flickr, I think you're doing better with what you have than many do with much more costly equipment.

Are you able to articulate exactly what improvements you're looking for?

Well thank you for the kind words Shelley. I just want crisper/sharper looking pictures?

I just did some more digging through your Flickr. It looks like most of your portrait work is done with the 50?

The 85 1.8 might be a very nice addition to your arsenal. Since most of your portraiture appears to be outside, working distance shouldn't be a concern. It is sharper than the 50 1.8 STM and the 50 1.8 II. You might enjoy being able to take a few steps farther back from your subjects, too.

In looking at your work, the 135 F2 really jumps out at me as being the right lens to add, but it is over double your budget.

I really enjoy the 40 pancake, it is sharper than the 50 II (but comparable to the 50 STM). I don't think the shorter focal length would really benefit you.

The 85mm f/1.8 has a really good reputation for the price. I'm surprised to see them now in the $300-400 range, I think last time I checked it was around $600.

neacail wrote in post #17946817
I just did some more digging through your Flickr. It looks like most of your portrait work is done with the 50?

The 85 1.8 might be a very nice addition to your arsenal. Since most of your portraiture appears to be outside, working distance shouldn't be a concern. It is sharper than the 50 1.8 STM and the 50 1.8 II. You might enjoy being able to take a few steps farther back from your subjects, too.

In looking at your work, the 135 F2 really jumps out at me as being the right lens to add, but it is over double your budget.

I really enjoy the 40 pancake, it is sharper than the 50 II (but comparable to the 50 STM). I don't think the shorter focal length would really benefit you.

yes I use my 50 cause of the fix aperture.

Thank you so much for your input!

nathancarter wrote in post #17946828
The 85mm f/1.8 has a really good reputation for the price. I'm surprised to see them now in the $300-400 range, I think last time I checked it was around $600.

I looked on the for sale board and it looks like a few went through at $250-$275 shipped

i'd go for an 85/1.8. very solid lens.

I know that it's over your budget but have you considered the 70-200 f4 with what I saw on your flicker page it would give you some breathing room from your subjects. For portraits you cam not go wrong with the 85.

if you're looking at the 85 1.8, you should probably just go ahead and get it. It was my first lens upgrade and still one of my favorites. Great crop portrait lens.

Lovely shots on your flickr

It doesnt seem that the lens is holding you back at all and you're clearly very comfortable with the 50mm focal length. Do you ever feel that you'd like something wider or longer? That's the first question I would ask. Without knowing your needs I would recommend a fast 35mm lens, on your body that would make for a great all-purpose lens. There's several great options to choose from in that focal length as well.

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #17947017
Lovely shots on your flickr

It doesnt seem that the lens is holding you back at all and you're clearly very comfortable with the 50mm focal length. Do you ever feel that you'd like something wider or longer? That's the first question I would ask. Without knowing your needs I would recommend a fast 35mm lens, on your body that would make for a great all-purpose lens. There's several great options to choose from in that focal length as well.

Thank you so much for the complements.

I do wish I had a wider lens and longer and sharper haha. But I think the thing that annoys me the most is the sharpness of my pictures?

Can you post some examples of the ones you feel aren't sharp enough?

nathancarter wrote in post #17947084
Can you post some examples of the ones you feel aren't sharp enough?

Maybe I am not using the right word. I just feel mine are missing that crisp look. Maybe it is cause I do shoot in the wrong lighting?

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/B5oi​MS

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/yMbA​wj

mamaof2 wrote in post #17947095
Maybe I am not using the right word. I just feel mine are missing that crisp look. Maybe it is cause I do shoot in the wrong lighting?

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/B5oi​MS mother and daughter by mamaof2wi, on Flickr

This photo to just does not seem as crisp as I want it

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/yMbA​wj Untitled by mamaof2wi, on Flickr

Haze from the sun will have an affect on sharpness. And, in the second photograph, it appears that focus might be on the glass jar? His fingernails and the spider look very sharp to me, but his eyelashes don't look sharp enough. Is that how the RAW looks?

What are you using to edit?

There is a "Haze" slider in Adobe Camera Raw (it might be in Lightroom, too) under "FX" that might boost up crispness in the sunny shot. It will reduce the haze, so you'd need to balance the desired effects.

Depending on what software you're using, you can up the "Clarity" a touch (5 or so) and the sharpening just a little bit.

In the photograph you've linked to on Facebook (which is lovely), there are at least two light sources being utilized. She is clearly backlit (most likely the sun), but there is also a catch light (which looks to be split in two or three) in her eyes. There appears to be nothing in the natural environment that would cause this. Something (a reflector or electronic light source, or combination of sources . . . maybe two flash guns?) was used to cast light on the subject's face. That will have a positive effect on the photo if done properly. In looking at your sunny photo, I don't think a reflector was used.

If you don't have a reflector, you might like to pick a 5-way one up. They are inexpensive and versatile.