[jatrax]

Lighting is possibly the most important thing for stock photography. Certainly a good lens is needed as well, but without proper lighting the lens is not going to matter. Photography is a chain:subject>composition>lighting>lens>camera>photographer. The image is only as strong as the weakest link.

I would suggest you work on your lighting and skills before investing money in a new lens. The kit lens is quite capable of producing sale-able images. Several of my best selling images were taken with the FA 28-90 which is generally reviewed as a poor lens.

This is not to say that you should not invest in good glass, you should if you are serious about this, but no lens is going to magically improve your images. In the image posted the lighting is the weak link, and no lens is going to improve that. When you get to the point that the lens is the weak link, that is the time to spend money on glass.

[VoiceOfReason]

The Tamron 17-50 is great, but not silent focusing.

[Johndav]

Good advice. I've got a lot of experience both with stills and video where I've convinced myself that my photography would enjoy a sudden leap in quality if I bought another lens. It's taken me decades to work out that the stock lenses are good for most photography

[stevebrot]

Well it is true, lenses are important, but light is #1.

An often overlooked maxim. The quality of light determines the type of image you can capture.


Steve

[VisualDarkness]

Kind of hard to see in the attatched pic, and it wouldnt let me remove, so heres the full size image
http://i42.tinypic.com/np1axi.jpg

Is it shot at 1/60s? That's probably too slow for most models to stand still enough for really good sharpness.

[neostyles]

Would you suggest I should have turned on the flash?

[jatrax]

Where are you thinking of selling your images? PM me if you don't want to post that here.

[Tanzer]

A couple strobes, light stands, and diffusers (umbrellas or softboxes) will work wonders, depending on what you want to do. You don't have to spend a lot of money. I would start with one off camera strobe, some triggering method (wired hotshoe connection is fine), a light stand and umbrella, and go from there.

[tclausen]

Well, in the example you posted, she is standing in the shade and is heavily backlit, no wonder you don't see enough detail in her hair.

Yeah...Looks like there'd be plenty of light, though, so a simple reflector (I'd submit, golden, given the cast on the picture) below on the ground should make a huge difference in this picture

As for lens, it's hard to say. I'd not go below a 30ish mm for this sort of photos (distortion of facial features, for example), and would probably suggest something 50-70mm - but a low perspective like in this photo is hard to get with a longer focal length.

I'll start sounding like a broken record, but how 'bout investing in a good reflector and the 31mm Ltd?

[neostyles]

Thanks so much for the advice everyone! Can someone link me to a decent cheap reflector?

[jatrax]

Here is a link as an example: Amazon.com: Neewer 110CM 43" 5-in-1 Collapsible Multi-Disc Light Reflector: Camera & Photo These are made by many different companies and in many different sizes. Not recommending this one, it was just the first that came up in a search. Do a similar search and find out what size you need and what your budget is.

[cyclone3d]

I didn't see anybody else mention it, but it looks like that picture has a bit of front-focusing going on. It looks like the camera is focused on the leaves in front of here forehead.