Originally Posted by gra2172
To me, that sounds like a two-lens problem. As you pointed out in your first post, wide angle lenses don't work well for portraits. Portraits are usually tightly framed, and to do that with a wide lens you need to be so close to the subject that they become distorted.
One option would be an [url="http://www.The-Digital-Picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-85mm-f-1.8-USM-Lens-Review.aspx]85mm f/1.8[/url] for portraits ($400) and if you can stretch your budget by $100, the [url="http://www.The-Digital-Picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-8-16mm-f-4.5-5.6-DC-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx]Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6[/url] ($700), else perhaps the [url="http://www.The-Digital-Picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-10-20mm-f-4-5.6-EX-DC-Lens-Review.aspx]Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6[/url] ($480). For the 85/1.8, I can tell you from experience that it's a great lens for portraits and I think it's one of the best values in the Canon lens lineup (I sold mine only after getting the 85mm f/1.2<span style="color: #ff0000;"]L II). I've never used either Sigma lens, but Bryan reviews the 8-16mm favorably. I used to have the Canon 10-22mm lens, and that was great for wide angle/landscape shots - I left it out of the recommendation because of the higher price tag. However, if you'd prioritize landscapes over portraits, you might consider the Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5($840)with the EF 50mm f/1.8 ($120) for portraits, a combination which fits your budget.
Hope that helps...
--John
Reply With Quote