Best lenses for baby/children shots with a D300

Since I've got very little feedback (although one of the two I got was very good) to my post in the beginners' forum I put it here again in a slightly different form.
I would just like to have a few more opinions.

I've got two questions:

1) What lens(es) should I buy for the D300 to get the best possible baby shots? The overall budget for the lens(es) is limited to about 2000$.

2) What lens(es) should I buy for the D300 to get the best possible baby and younger children shots? Do I need a zoom lens?
Again the overall budget for the lens(es) is limited to about 2000$.

The reason I ask both questions is that I'm not yet sure if I want to spend 2000$ now to buy dedicated lenses for baby shots and later have to buy more. Maybe some of you also have some opinion regarding this matter.

Any answers/suggestions are appreciated!

Karl

easy - I make a very good living shooting baby/children pictures and I use my D200 with the Nikon 105mm f/2D-DC. I have owned almost every Nikon pro quality AF lens and none has earned it's keep like the 105 has.

--
Nikon D200 and a 105 f/2D-DC
It's all I need

Thanks for your suggestion.

What I don't understand is how you can take pics of more than just the head and not stand rather far from the subject (i.e. what about indoor shots)? Elsewhere in the forum people already mentioned this as a problem for the 85 mm lens.

Don't you need zoom if they move fast (e.g. running towards you)?
I don't expect that my future child will pose for me.

Regards
Karl

Great Nikon portrait lenses:

50mm f/1.4 ($300)
85mm f/1.4 ($900)
60mm f/2.8 Micro ($500)
105mm f/2.8 VR Micro ($700)
70-200mm f/2.8 VR ($1600)
24-70mm f/2.8 ($1600)

I'm sure others will add the ones I missed, but those are the ones I've used at some point personally and they did a fantastic job. Prices are approximate.

It depends on how much weight you want on the D300 as well as how often you want to be swapping lenses.

Here, off the top of my head, are my suggestions keeping a $2000 budget in mind:

Nikon 16-85 VR $569 at Beach Camera
Nikon 85 F1.8 $394 at Abe's of Maine
Nikon 70-300 VR $465 at Abe's of Maine

Nikon SB900 Flash $500 everywhere (brand new, everyone is selling at MSRP right now)

LA CROSSE BC-900 BATTERY CHARGER with 4 AA 2600 mAh batteries and 8 Sanyo Eneloop AA 2000 mAh batteries $63
3M Micro Fiber lens cleaning cloth $5

This leaves you $4 for a Latte at your favorite coffee shop.

Karl Giger said:

Since I've got very little feedback (although one of the two I got
was very good) to my post in the beginners' forum I put it here again
in a slightly different form.
I would just like to have a few more opinions.

I've got two questions:
1) What lens(es) should I buy for the D300 to get the best possible
baby shots? The overall budget for the lens(es) is limited to about
2000$.
2) What lens(es) should I buy for the D300 to get the best possible
baby and younger children shots? Do I need a zoom lens?
Again the overall budget for the lens(es) is limited to about 2000$.

The reason I ask both questions is that I'm not yet sure if I want to
spend 2000$ now to buy dedicated lenses for baby shots and later have
to buy more. Maybe some of you also have some opinion regarding this
matter.

Any answers/suggestions are appreciated!

Karl

Click to expand...

--
Scott

Karl Giger said:

Thanks for your suggestion.
What I don't understand is how you can take pics of more than just
the head and not stand rather far from the subject (i.e. what about
indoor shots)? Elsewhere in the forum people already mentioned this
as a problem for the 85 mm lens.

Click to expand...

Since Pixelman makes very good living by taking baby/children, he maybe taking studio shots most of time. His 105mm suits for that application.

Karl Giger said:

Don't you need zoom if they move fast (e.g. running towards you)?
I don't expect that my future child will pose for me.

Click to expand...

I originally bought the 50mm f1.8, then wanted to have more flexibility, so bought the 24-70mm. For my case, I really enjoy taking pictures of my two kids (3 yrs and 10 months). I found that the 24-70mm just suit for my taste; however, others would argue to buy the 17-55mm instead. It really depends on what range of shots you are taking.

I also have the 70-200mm, but I seldom use it on my kids because it req'd 6 ft to focus.

--
Regards,
Frankie

Karl Giger said:

Since I've got very little feedback (although one of the two I got
was very good) to my post in the beginners' forum I put it here again
in a slightly different form.
I would just like to have a few more opinions.

I've got two questions:
1) What lens(es) should I buy for the D300 to get the best possible
baby shots? The overall budget for the lens(es) is limited to about
2000$.
2) What lens(es) should I buy for the D300 to get the best possible
baby and younger children shots? Do I need a zoom lens?
Again the overall budget for the lens(es) is limited to about 2000$.

The reason I ask both questions is that I'm not yet sure if I want to
spend 2000$ now to buy dedicated lenses for baby shots and later have
to buy more. Maybe some of you also have some opinion regarding this
matter.

Click to expand...

I think that the 35mm/f2D should be on your "must get" list. It's great for baby shots, and quite good for closeups. Good low light performance for indoor shots without flash [i.e., good for baby shots]. It's also a good "all-around" lens. And, it won't "break the bank".

One of the 50mm lenses would also be a good addition. I like the 50/1.4, but if budget is a real concern you could go with the 50/1.8 [not as good a "build" as the f1.4, but a lot of folks here like it].

Some replies have suggested the 85/1.4. That's a great lens, but it isn't very "forgiving"; you've got to take your time and use good techniques with this lens. The results, of course, are worth it; but, probably not your best choice for just starting out.

The 60mm/f2.8 Micro is a good choice if you want to get started with some macro work; and it's suitable as a general lens as well. The newest AF-S "G" version is, of course, the "latest and greatest"; but the older AF "D" lens also works great [and might not cost you as much].

For a medium zoom, I see that some folks recommended the new 24-70/2.8G. But, the predecessor 28-70/2.8D is no slouch. If budget is really an overriding concern, you could also consider the 35-70/2.8D which isn't quite as good as the 28-70 but is still a good lens.

For a longer zoom, the 70-200/2.8G VR would be good [with the added VR feature]. But, you might also consider one of the 80-200/2.8D variants which are optically very close and would cost you a bit less.

There are, of course, many many other good options to choose from. But the ones I've mentioned will also work for you over the "long term". [These shouldn't be considered "dedicated baby lenses"; they're good all-around lenses.]
Just a few of my thoughts. Hope it helps.

I shoot set shots, I control the setup, I get paid for this. If you want to shoot snap shots of your kids running around then, yes, a zoom, the Nikon 17-55, would be a better choice.

as to your question about distance I find i can get nice full body shots of young children with the 105 at between 15/20 feet depending on the age and size of the child. Personally i find that if I get much closer I get into their space and then they do not react naturally, they are influenced by my being there.

at 20 feet the field of view of the 105 on my DX camera is 4.5 feet by 3 feet, more than enough for the ages I specialize in..

Karl Giger said:

Thanks for your suggestion.
What I don't understand is how you can take pics of more than just
the head and not stand rather far from the subject (i.e. what about
indoor shots)? Elsewhere in the forum people already mentioned this
as a problem for the 85 mm lens.

Don't you need zoom if they move fast (e.g. running towards you)?
I don't expect that my future child will pose for me.

Regards
Karl

Click to expand...

--
Nikon D200 and a 105 f/2D-DC
It's all I need

Thanks for your very informative answer.

Since buying all three prime lenses (i.e. 35/2, 50/1.4 & 85/1.4) and the zoom lens (24-270/2.8) would "break the bank" I think I will first buy one of the prime lenses for the first few months (i.e. immobile period) and then the zoom lens.

Which one of the above mentioned prime lenses would you suggest if only one were allowed? From your previous answer I already know that you wouldn't recommend the 85/1.4, but what about the other two?

What do you think about the 85/1.8 in comparison to the 85/1.4? Since it is much cheaper than the 85/1.4, I could consider adding the 85/1.8 to the 35/2 or 50/1.4.

Cheers
Karl

On the D3 I use the 24-70 and the 105 a lot.
on a d300 I would use the 17-55 and for low light the 50/1.4

If you are going for the 24-70 F2.8 zoom, forget all the prime fall within that range. Some people may argue that the zoom is F2.8. But how often you shot at wide open at F1.4/1.8. Also, I will take out the 85 wihich is too close to the zoom.

I have the 50 F1.8, 28-70 F2.8, 85 F.14, 105 F2 DC. I always use 28-70 pair with 105 F2 DC. 85% of my portrait/children shot with 28-70 lens. Some time I will use 70-200 VR if outdoor.

Also, I wont spend any money on DX lens. I have one which is 12-24 Tokina.

Karl Giger said:

Thanks for your very informative answer.
Since buying all three prime lenses (i.e. 35/2, 50/1.4 & 85/1.4) and
the zoom lens (24-270/2.8) would "break the bank" I think I will
first buy one of the prime lenses for the first few months (i.e.
immobile period) and then the zoom lens.

Which one of the above mentioned prime lenses would you suggest if
only one were allowed? From your previous answer I already know that
you wouldn't recommend the 85/1.4, but what about the other two?

What do you think about the 85/1.8 in comparison to the 85/1.4? Since
it is much cheaper than the 85/1.4, I could consider adding the
85/1.8 to the 35/2 or 50/1.4.

Cheers
Karl

Click to expand...

What happen to the D300 with 24-70 F2.8? why you pick 17-55 on D300 instead of 24-70? For Children/Bady shoot, did 28 mm useful at all? 24-70 on D300 will be 36-105 which is even better for portrait, isn't it. I agreed 105 DC F2 on Full Frame will be awesome. I am saving bit by bit for the D700. I just got a new house and a big morgage to go with it. Hobby will some next. :-(

Thomas Streng said:

On the D3 I use the 24-70 and the 105 a lot.
on a d300 I would use the 17-55 and for low light the 50/1.4

Click to expand...

Not pro, just amateur.

I find having a wide to normal zoom is great for zooming in for the tight shot, but also going wide for the environmental shot very useful. I have a Tamron 17-50/2.8, but the Nikon 17-55/2.8 would be the obvious (and fantastic) choice for you. I would skip the slower aperature consumer zooms.

Since DX gains depth of field over FX, I found the Sigma 30/1.4 lens really productive in giving me a versatile lowlight lens. The Nikon 35/2 should also be considered, but I found the sigma more useful and gave me nicer subject isolation and low light abilities that were too significant to ignore.

I also have a 50/1.4 which is quite good as a portrait lens, but if you get a wide-normal zoom and a 30mm prime, I would suggest going with a short telephoto like the 85/1.4 (nicer bokeh than the 1.8). As an above poster suggested the 105/2 is a fantastic choice too. Having said that I don't find using my Nikon 105/2.8 useful for candid photos for my children, but I have a Sigma 50-150/2.8 for that duty. This zoom is not in the same league as the nikon primes or the nikon 70-200vr, but has a nice range (the wide-end 50mm is useful) and has fairly nice bokeh for kid shots. If you plan on studio-like shots, if you can pose your children for your shots (my kids don't stay still for me), then I would think the zoom would be more useful. If I was not getting Nikon 70-200vr or Sigma 50-150/2.8 for telephoto and wanted a prime lens, I would probably get the 85/1.4 myself. After looking at my use of the 50-150/2.8 zoom, most of my shots are in the 50-100mm range, just because the children tend to be fairly close to me.

This is probably how I would do it new:
Tamron 17-50/2.8
Sigma 30/1.4
Nikon 85/1.4 (or Sigma 50-150/2.8)

Or look for used lenses to stick to budget:
Nikon 17-55/2.8
Nikon 85/1.4

Perhaps used:
Nikon 17-55/2.8
Sigma 30/1.4
Sigma 50-150/2.8

Or used
Tamron 17-50/2.8
Sigma 30/1.4
Sigma 50-150/2.8
SB800 or 900 flash

Happy hunting!

I first had a d300 and 17-55, later got a D3 and therefore needed the 24-70.

In most cases I would say 24 for baby/portrait/people photography should be wide enough even on dx.
However sometimes there are "fun" images, where I also use wider.
For example this one with 14mm on fx:



For comparison same scene with 85mm... totally different , I like both but might like the 14mm even better.

For kids on a DX body I would say 24-70.
Chich

Just get a 85mm f1.4: its magic for children! (and anything that breaths)





ISO 3200!



Best
--
Ray Soares

See my pictures at http://www.pbase.com/raysoares

my kids range from 7 1/2 years to 9months, so I see a wide range of motion and activity.

for "general" use (indoors and out) I use the 24-70, the images are sharp and the colors are great.

I'll use the 70-200 when the kids are in the pool or on the playground or just running around the yard. again, images are sharp and colors are great. with the added range I'm far enough away to avoid splashes of water (usually) as well as not interfering with their play (best way to get great candid shots of kids being kids).

whichever lens you go for, it's a great investment and the return of great photos of your kids is more than worth it.

good luck and enjoy

You can get fantastic results with a 50mm f/1.8.
Remember: a great lens doesn't mean a great photo.

Start with that (about $100) and see from there if you nead more reach, a zoom and so on.

I've done a lot of children photography with that lens, I upgraded to the 50mm f/1.4 only because my equipment was stolen.

A few examples:











--
Paolo Vairo
http://www.pbase.com/pvairo

Having a daughter age 9 months, I really enjoy using my 50 mm and my 85mm. And yes, I have taken plenty of shots below f2.8, so a zoom with f2.8 may not always be enough.

Eventually, I will add either the 30mm Sigma or the 35 mm Nikkor to my setup.

For zoom range (with enough light), I use my trusty "old" 28-70. I would not go wider than that for people pics, and the upper length, 70mm, equals 105mm on DX, which works pretty well.

Hans

My vote for best wide aperture fix lenses, because baby iris can't behave like adult better to avoid flash and studio lamp. When the lamp is on, our iris can act the way it should be, fast enough to make it small, but children do not act like that. they still wide open so it blind them, but they can't tell you that.

So that's why so many people wearing glasses in older day but have good picture in baby days. Who had to be blamed?

and You can make more profit by showing you are care.