Lens suggestions for small studio

I've spent the last couple years renovating my 3rd floor loft for use as a home theater and office, but I'm also going to be using it for photography. The room is 26' x 22' feet, but there is a chimney in the middle which means the furthest I could shoot is about 13'. The chimney, by the way, is creme city brick which will give me an awesome backdrop . I have an XT with the kit lens and a 50mm f/1.4 in the bag. The 50mm seems a bit long up there if I'm doing full body shots. The kit lenses leave much to be desired. Hopefully, I'll be adding some off camera lighting soon as well (still deciding on that). Can anyone recommend a lens for this environment? I'd like to keep the price under $1,000 and definitely would look at non-Canon lenses.

Thanks!

Hmn..sounds like a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 or the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L [Or the older 28-70 f/2.8L which can be found for less and is optically very close] would be a good choice, A bit wide for the times you need body shots, but goes nice and tight for facial closeups and etc

Well, most importantly - how do you find 18mm on the kit lens? Could you cope with 24mm as your widest?

There are a lot of good 17-55 and 24-70 (or 18-50/28-75 etc.) f/2.8 offerings out there - you probably couldn't go too far wrong with any of the Sigma or Tamron offerings!

Out of curiosity, why can't you shoot in the 22' direction?

Yep,,Tamron 28-75mm F/2.8.. Nice lens for portraiture..

i would recommend the 17-55 which I haven't used and the 24-70 which I love!

If you have 13' to play in, the 28-75 Tamron will serve you very well for head to full body shots. If your studio is in a war zone, or you have a leaky roof, then the Canon (brick) 24-70

I have up to 16' to shoot in. My Tamron always go on first and rarely comes of. I can comfortably do full body but a slightly wider, maybe 24mm, wouldn't hurt at times, depending what I a want in a full body. 75mm is a good length for head and head/shoulder, 1/2 body shots, as is the 85 in my space.

If I was to buy 2 primes, I would use a 28, maybe 24, and the 85, which I have.

I haven't prices all the lens but for $1000, you could probably get the all 3 lenses. I wouldn't. Either the 2 primes or, in my opinion, a better choise, a 24-70 or 28-75 for what you want to do.

35L

Overall, in a studio situation I'd think that zooms should not be necessary. You certainly must have some control over the situation and are working with known distances and subjects. Zooms are fine and if you have them, use them. But, ideally I'd think some nice primes are worth spending money on. YOU have a 50/1.4 - great. You say it is too long then you need a 30/35 perhaps.

gasrocks wrote in post #7236398
Overall, in a studio situation I'd think that zooms should not be necessary. You certainly must have some control over the situation and are working with known distances and subjects. Zooms are fine and if you have them, use them. But, ideally I'd think some nice primes are worth spending money on. YOU have a 50/1.4 - great. You say it is too long then you need a 30/35 perhaps.

I agree here. The zooms are sharpe but the primes seem to always be better. Go with a 24 or a 30/35

IMO, fast primes are for shooting - well,fast. In the studio, I shoot between f5.6 and f11. In that range, the primes have little or no sharpness advantage over good zooms.

17-55 works very well for me. I can get full body to tight headshot in a relatively small space.

I'm just the opposite... I prefer primes in a studio situation, because the pace of work is slower and more deliberate. I can change a lens while the strobes are recycling

If I were OP, I think I'd consider the EF 28/1.8, or perhaps the 24/1.4 if money is no object, 24/2.8 if it is, or the Siggy 30/1.4.

For me, zooms are what I choose for fast moving situations, such as sports, where there's no time to change lenses or reposition myself.

But, this is just personal preference.

amfoto1 wrote in post #7237551
I'm just the opposite... I prefer primes in a studio situation, because the pace of work is slower and more deliberate. I can change a lens while the strobes are recycling

If I were OP, I think I'd consider the EF 28/1.8, or perhaps the 24/1.4 if money is no object, 24/2.8 if it is, or the Siggy 30/1.4.

For me, zooms are what I choose for fast moving situations, such as sports, where there's no time to change lenses or reposition myself.

But, this is just personal preference.

I'd be careful shooting portraits with a lens shorter than a tele..

amfoto1 wrote in post #7237551
I can change a lens while the strobes are recycling

Wow, I think I'd pay money to see that! My strobes recycle in well under a second.

A good model can go through poses fast enough that the buffer in my 20D can't keep up.

There is nothing slow about shooting in a studio, imo, unless you are shooting formal portraits, posing children or, my favorite, rocks . Fortunately I pick and choose what I want to shoot, since I don't do it for the money.