L Series Alternatives, Rebel Sxi & Print Quality

[Longbeach]

I've started to sell my work but can't really afford an expensive new body (eg. Canon Mark II). I have a Rebel Xsi (12 MP) and cheap Canon consumer lenses. Would better lenses allow for quality prints of up to around 26 x 34 with the Xsi body? Or is a high resolution camera an absolute must for larger print sizes?  Additionally, what cheaper, third-party (Tamron, Sigma, etc.) lenses would do the job equally or nearly equally as well as the  more expensive Canon L Series?
18-200 MM, 11-14mm, macro?

[DarkPenguin]

I've started to sell my work but can't really afford an expensive new body (eg. Canon Mark II). I have a Rebel Xsi (12 MP) and cheap Canon consumer lenses. Would better lenses allow for quality prints of up to around 26 x 34 with the Xsi body? Or is a high resolution camera an absolute must for larger print sizes?  Additionally, what cheaper, third-party (Tamron, Sigma, etc.) lenses would do the job equally or nearly equally as well as the  more expensive Canon L Series?
18-200 MM, 11-14mm, macro?

A 34" print is going to end up somewhere around 125 DPI.   That is kind of low.  Print some and see if they are of the quality you want to sell.

Some 3rd party and cheaper Canon lenses considered pretty good.

Sigma 10-20
Tamron 17-50 f2.8
Tamron 28-75 f2.8 (Be prepared to mail this one back to Tamron for adjustment.  Lousy QC.)
Sigma 70-200 f2.8
Tamron 70-200 f2.8
Canon 70-200 f4 L
Canon 60mm f2.8 macro
Canon 50mm f2.8 macro
Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro

[AndrewKulin]

I will suggest that a better lens (or lenses) with your current camera will provide a better solution than a better camera with a cheap lens.  You will notice a difference in image quality and instead of 24x36 which is darn large (and subject to low dpi as pointed above) why not start out with smaller sized (e.g., 13x19) prints?  If you are set on 24x36 you could also consider stitching say 6 photos or so taken taken with your current camera which would then effectively let you put together the 24x36 image you want with a higher dpi.

Today's digital SLRs are essentially throwaway items as you will be stuck with the 10 or 12 or 15 MP resolution and other features/goodies that you buy today while in 2 or 3 years you will be yearning for that cameres with triple the resolution at half the cost.  Good lenses are an investment in that you will more than likely continue using them with thiose newer and better cameras in the future.  

Andrew

[stever]

for squeezing IQ out of the camera, the best values are in Canon primes - 50 1.4, 85 1.8, 100 2, 100 2.8M, 135 2, 200 2.8.  Wideangle is a problem, but the Tokina 11-16 is pretty good with a crop frame camera.  In general, i don't recommend investing a lot of money in aps-C lenses - if you want to make big prints you're ultimately going to want full frame - even if it's a good used 5D.

using good lenses and technique, 16x24 from your camera should not be a big problem.  larger prints will require very good lighting and less demanding subjects but are possible

[Longbeach]

Thanks, guys. Your suggestions make me feel comfortable sticking with my Rebel Xsi, getting better lenses, and stitching for bigger prints when necessary.

[DarkPenguin]

The rebel series is up to 15mp now.

This is pretty funny.  The Xsi would be like 125 dpi at 34" and the X1i is about 140 dpi.  Woo!

Really Right Stuff sells great stitching gear.

[Greg D]

Thanks, guys. Your suggestions make me feel comfortable sticking with my Rebel Xsi, getting better lenses, and stitching for bigger prints when necessary.

For what it's worth, I'd add a couple more lens ideas to the suggestions offered above.  Two Canon lenses that I think are exceptionally good deals (if you need zooms in these ranges) are the 70-300 IS (f4-5.6 I think) and the 28-135 IS (f3.5-5.6).  I've owned both the 24-105L and the 28-135 (two of those) and find little difference in image quality.  The 24-105's strength may be durability and weather-proofness (the 28-135 collects dust pretty quickly), but image quality can't justify the $$ difference.  I haven't owned anything I can directly compare to the 70-300, but it's pretty sharp at most lengths (up to 250 or so) and its build quality seems better than most other Canon mid-priced lenses.

[Geoff Wittig]

For what it's worth, I'd add a couple more lens ideas to the suggestions offered above.  Two Canon lenses that I think are exceptionally good deals (if you need zooms in these ranges) are the 70-300 IS (f4-5.6 I think) and the 28-135 IS (f3.5-5.6).  I've owned both the 24-105L and the 28-135 (two of those) and find little difference in image quality.  The 24-105's strength may be durability and weather-proofness (the 28-135 collects dust pretty quickly), but image quality can't justify the $$ difference.  I haven't owned anything I can directly compare to the 70-300, but it's pretty sharp at most lengths (up to 250 or so) and its build quality seems better than most other Canon mid-priced lenses.

A lot depends on what camera body you're hanging the lens on. I own both the 24-105 f:4 L and the 28-135 IS. There won't be much difference in image quality once you stop down a bit if you're using an APS-C sized sensor. But if you put both lenses in front of a full frame camera, the difference in corner sharpness is pretty obvious. The 28-135 never gets really sharp out at the corners no matter how far you stop down, and diffraction robs you of any benefit past f:16 or so. The 24-105, at least my copy, is very sharp in the corners even at f:4 if you've focused carefully.

[stever]

i agree with Geoff (although his 24-105 sounds sharper than mine at f4) -- and these lenses can get you prints up to 13x19 (stopped down to f5.6-11) that will withstand close inspection.  But they are not in the same class as good primes if you want to go bigger.

[Plekto]

I'd look into good stitching and blending software for prints that are that large.  That could in some cases make for a very easy 200DPI in the final print without needing a new body.