Greg Loc: Maryland

Your first shot doesn't appear to be an issue with sharpness so much as camera shake. You second shot looks fine, although I think you need to either change which focus point you use, or focus on the eye(s) then recompose. Looking at the hair, it looks like you have a sharp image, just not focus in the right place (unless you were going for a soft focus effect).

The Saint KK4GO Loc: Florida

My money is on the Canon 50mm 1.4, hands down, for the money.

The Saint KK4GO Loc: Florida

My money is on the Canon 50mm 1.4, hands down best for the $$$.

Leopold Lysloff

Fast normal lenses are ideal for all around shooting and fine images, but there is something about longer lenses for portraits that give a different glow to portrait work. I have shot the same portrait with both types of lenses and while both were excellent, when I showed both examples (unidentified) to a few people, they all went for the long lens images. Perhaps contrast or other factors led to their choices but this is just a point of information for others to try and see what happens. You might also notice that most pro. photographers will always shoot portraits with longer lenses.
I also have seen 'street" photography portraits with standard lenses that are awesome (but candid and very detailed like a press shot, a great effect if that's what you are aiming for).

Greg Loc: Maryland

Well, yes. That's because wide angle lenses tend to exaggerate perspective. So the nose being closer to you than the eyes make that nose look bigger, etc. While it may not be much closer, it doesn't really need to be. Whereas longer focal lengths tend to flatten an image and give a more appealing face perspective wise. To me, that's one disadvantage to APS-C and 4/3'rds sensors. While a 50mm lens give you the field of view of a 75 mm (or 100 in the case of the 4/3), you still get the optical dynamics of the 50mm.

Leopold Lysloff

Great points and thank you for clarifying that Greg. When I think of lenses, I still relate to true mm. I don't think about those smaller sensors. I still have 35mm mind:)
I use a 4/3 camera for some of my shots and for the most part enjoy very nice results. The lenses of course translate according to that sensor and we loose something. Now that there are full sensors (equal to 35mm film) that we can get results that look fantastic. Prices are still very high but in time will they will be affordable.

I enjoy using my vintage lenses for most portrait work and they retain that nice charm and artistic quality we have from analog photography.
It's always so nice to have choices.

allen finley photography Loc: Sunshine State.

50mm and 85mm and 100mm lenses are the traditional favorites. Since your camera has a 1.6x crop factor stick with the 50 & 85mm. The inexpensive 50 1.8 lens takes very crisp shots and at around $100 it won't break the bank. Start with the 50mm learn to shoot with it ( leave the camera off Automatic ). hope this helps.

helmigr

I have to agree with Don. I use a 100mm Tokina macro on a Canon body and it is incredibly sharp. Of course the DOF can be a little hincky with a macro lense but you get used to it. Frankly though, I don't understand why you're having trouble with the lens you have. If you stay away from the far and near limits of the zoom range, you should be able to get quite acceptable results. If you think shutter speed is part of the issue, crank the ISO up. You might have to filter out some noise in PP but in portraiture it shouldn't be too excessive. Hope this helps.

helmigr

I have to agree with Don. I use a 100mm Tokina macro on a Canon body and it is incredibly sharp. Of course the DOF can be a little hincky with a macro lense but you get used to it. Long lenses make your subjects look better and your not in their faces. Unless you're shooting experienced models, that can be intimidating for you subject.

Frankly though, I don't understand why you're having trouble with the lens you have. If you stay away from the far and near limits of the zoom range, you should be able to get quite acceptable results. If you think shutter speed is part of the issue, crank the ISO up. You might have to filter out some noise in PP but in portraiture it shouldn't be too excessive. Hope this helps.

mgemstone Loc: Chicago/Cocoa beach/La/NY

If you mean headshots (portraits include head to toe images), there are several in the Canon world.
85mm F1.8 is excellent for about $390
100mm F2.8 macro for $560
50mm F1.4 at $380
70mm-200mm F4.0L at $660

For prime lenses in your price range, the 85mm is hard to beat.
For more flexibility and pro "L" glass, I'd choose the 70-200mm zoom.

marcomarks Loc: Ft. Myers, FL

I have to agree with another poster on this forum. You aren't having lens problems. I suspect your shutter speed is slow enough that either you have handshake on your part as you squeeze off a shot, or your subjects are moving slightly. The lens you have should be a lot crisper than the samples you uploaded. Seriously crisper. The last two are acceptable but still not as good as that camera and lens has the potential to do.

Hang onto your money for a while and learn more about the balance between shutter speed, aperture, and ISO. Learn about depth of field and what to focus on. That information is available at numerous sources online for free.

The photo sample I've attached was done with a 14MP Canon A2200 fully-auto point and shoot which is about the size of a pack of playing cards and retails for $139. My wife handheld it at arms length pointing back at them. This is not PhotoShop edited at all except for cropping it to 8X10 and making a 72dpi version that can fly over the web easily. If you can't do shots of at least this quality with a Rebel XT that costs many times over as much, it's your technique, the settings you have chosen, and your lack of understanding of the camera - not the lens. I hope you take this constructively and not get offended.

user2071 Loc: New England

The 85mm is wonderful!!

user2071 Loc: New England

The 85mm f/1.8 is the best portrait lens I ever owned. Wonderful bokeh. Sharp, but not over sharp. And fast.

photophly Loc: Old Bridge NJ

I like to use an 85mm but have been known to use a 50mm at times

user2071 Loc: New England

I plead guilty: don't and haven't had the 50mm, but a lot of people who swear by them.

However, even back in the old film days, the best length ... the most flattering length ... for portraits were lenses from 85mm to 105mm (although there are people that think 135mm is perfect).

Every manufacturer sold a good 85mm or 90mm, and Nikon's 105mm was spectacular. That was what everyone doing portraits used and I think mostly still do. It's something about the perspective that's uniquely flattering. There are articles about it around the net ... I've read a few, but honestly don't remember where.

The whole issue of perspective is interesting, especially since few of us own full frame cameras, so the "effective" length on our lenses has changed ... but the particular optical qualities of the original length do NOT change. I know that's a hard concept to wrap you head around, but it is true. And worth understanding before investing.

On the other hand, a "nifty fifty" is cheap ... a LOT cheaper than pretty much any other quality glass you can get, so there is that to consider too. The 50mm lens (or thereabouts) was, in previous generations, the "normal" lens, probably the most common lens on every camera. Called normal because it "sees" the world more or less the same way your naked eye will. Whether that's something you want or not is another issue.