Tele lens for running kid?

mrhau said:

I currently have Sony A6000, 16-50 kit, 35F18, 20F28; and RX100. My main focus is to take photos of my young baby and I mostly use the 35F18. I am pleased with the image clarity and the boken it offers. Given my girl starts walking and running around; 35F18 is too close to catch her actions, and I am looking for a longer range lens.

I am now looking for either
1) SEL18135
2) SEL55210
3) SEL70200F4
4) SEL85F18

I think most likely I will get SEL18135 as I heard it is a great walkaround lens, 135mm gives FF 200mm which shall be good reach (is it tele enough to shoot a running kid actually?). I wanted to know whether tele end of of SEL18135 is sharper than SEL55210 as I would use the tele end of the lens mostly. Obviously, SEL55210 offers a much more useful range for me.

What discourage me from getting the SEL55210 is the apparent lack of IQ and low light performance. And I suppose sooner or later I may need a lens to shoot her at performance in indoor setting; Would SEL55210 be bright enough for this? I reckon 70200 would be nicer but honestly I probably would not carry it too much given its weight so it is not my first choice. For me, I am happy w reasonable weight for great IQ. Maybe I can get the SEL18135 first and then get aother tele lens which can complement that and offers reasonable IQ?

I am actually quite happy with prime and hence am also thinking 85F18; though I have the feeling it is not tele enough for my purpose.

Any thought is more than appreciated! Many thanks!

Click to expand...

mrhau said:

I currently have Sony A6000, 16-50 kit, 35F18, 20F28; and RX100. My main focus is to take photos of my young baby and I mostly use the 35F18. I am pleased with the image clarity and the boken it offers. Given my girl starts walking and running around; 35F18 is too close to catch her actions, and I am looking for a longer range lens.

I am now looking for either
1) SEL18135
2) SEL55210
3) SEL70200F4
4) SEL85F18

I think most likely I will get SEL18135 as I heard it is a great walkaround lens, 135mm gives FF 200mm which shall be good reach (is it tele enough to shoot a running kid actually?). I wanted to know whether tele end of of SEL18135 is sharper than SEL55210 as I would use the tele end of the lens mostly. Obviously, SEL55210 offers a much more useful range for me.

What discourage me from getting the SEL55210 is the apparent lack of IQ and low light performance. And I suppose sooner or later I may need a lens to shoot her at performance in indoor setting; Would SEL55210 be bright enough for this? I reckon 70200 would be nicer but honestly I probably would not carry it too much given its weight so it is not my first choice. For me, I am happy w reasonable weight for great IQ. Maybe I can get the SEL18135 first and then get aother tele lens which can complement that and offers reasonable IQ?

I am actually quite happy with prime and hence am also thinking 85F18; though I have the feeling it is not tele enough for my purpose.

Any thought is more than appreciated! Many thanks!

Click to expand...

The Ryantist said:

When you say "performance" do you mean a recital or sports or something? So you'll be farther away but in low light? For that the 85/1.8 may work, or, perhaps even something like a manual 135 prime if she's in one spot long enough to focus.

If you wanted something really long the FE 70-300 is great too. It is only f/4.5 to 5.6 but for me the extended reach was worth more than F4 of the 70-200.

Click to expand...

AHM said:

I have older kids, and I primarily use the 35F18. I think it's the perfect focal length. I usually can get close enough.

For the times they are further away, I have (recently) the 18-135. The 55-210 is useless: the kids will come up close soon enough, and 55mm is then very long. In addition my 55-210 is soft. I'm no purist about sharpness, but for the 55-210 you don't have to crop much to see softness even on a 4K screen.

Click to expand...

Super_T said:

I have been using the 35/1.8 for my now 6 year old who's always on the move. It's small, light (important for when I need to run after him), and the fast AF and large aperture has given me a lot of nice action photos of him.

I have sometimes wondered if I should buy the 50/1.8 to get closer, but within secons he's too close anyway, so I rather use the 35 and crop when needed. I guess the 85 would be even worse. You'll get some great pictures - and then you need to change lens. Unless you're following the play or game from a distance. Then it should be great I guess.

I bought the 18-135 as soon as it came out (the only lens I ever bought at full price) and I'm very happy with it as an allround walk around lens. It's light, not too big, versatile focal length and very capable of giving nice shots. It is so much sharper in the long end that a crop of the 18-135 at 135mm is clearer and nicer than the 55-210 at 210. I have no more use for the 55-210 what so ever.
BUT the 18-135 will not give the nice bokeh shots that the 35mm does, nor will it give you the great indoor or low light action shots the 35 do.

So - it's a choice between convenient framing vs speed. And as my best shots of my kid are the full throttle action shots I still bring the 35 when I'm with him.

Click to expand...

mrhau said:

Super_T said:

I have been using the 35/1.8 for my now 6 year old who's always on the move. It's small, light (important for when I need to run after him), and the fast AF and large aperture has given me a lot of nice action photos of him.

I have sometimes wondered if I should buy the 50/1.8 to get closer, but within secons he's too close anyway, so I rather use the 35 and crop when needed. I guess the 85 would be even worse. You'll get some great pictures - and then you need to change lens. Unless you're following the play or game from a distance. Then it should be great I guess.

I bought the 18-135 as soon as it came out (the only lens I ever bought at full price) and I'm very happy with it as an allround walk around lens. It's light, not too big, versatile focal length and very capable of giving nice shots. It is so much sharper in the long end that a crop of the 18-135 at 135mm is clearer and nicer than the 55-210 at 210. I have no more use for the 55-210 what so ever.
BUT the 18-135 will not give the nice bokeh shots that the 35mm does, nor will it give you the great indoor or low light action shots the 35 do.

So - it's a choice between convenient framing vs speed. And as my best shots of my kid are the full throttle action shots I still bring the 35 when I'm with him.

Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on 50/1.8; I am tempted to replace my 35 with 50 but after reading your comment I probably would not do so.

Mind asking your intention for getting the 18-135 in the first place? It looks like you do have some great primes at various ranges. I suppose that is not your preferred lens to take kid photo? And for landscape you have great primes which you probably stick to as well?

Many thanks! Somehow I feel 18135 would be a great addition, but I also have the feeling it may sit in the bag while 35F18 is still my primary lens, except the conditions I do need some telerange...

Click to expand...

Super_T said:

My intentions for getting the 18-135 was for general walk around use. If I'm at the city or some event, museum or site with my family I often don't have the time or environment to do a lens change. I used the 35mm a lot for that too, but as you know it's limiting. Sometimes you want a picture of a large building, a family picture in a tight spot or some action at an arena, a far away sighting...
The other primes I use in two cases: When i have kind of a fixed environment and don't have to change focal lenght. Or when I'm taking photos just for the fun and challenge of it (as you may notice, apart from the 35 they're all manual lenses and a good picture often takes me 20-30 seconds to set up).

As an example - this weekend I joined a 'team-building' trip to a foreign city with my company. The 18-135 was a great companion as long as I was with my collegaues, I did group photos, portraits, action, and architecture. Mostly on Auto as I was walking with others and couldn't slow them down. I had a handful of misses out of 300 pictures, but most came out great (and those not great was my own fault ;-) ).
Then I went back to city center later to do some shots with the great Samyangs. It took me some time, and the pictures - in a normal size - is not that much better, but when blown up they show much more details and sharpness, of course. And it's also more fun to play with focus, bokeh etc. Fail rate however for the additional 300 Samyang pictures was at some 50% ;-) Mostly caused by me being to hasty with focus and camera settings.
You can see some of my pictures from the trip in the "This week..." section, btw.

Click to expand...

OpticsEngineer said:

" photos of my young baby .....Given my girl starts walking and running around...."

if your daughter is like my two, you have about two years before fast AF is a challenge.

Toddlers are not so much fast as they are tiring.... relentless in demanding attention, ,... but not actually fast. One may feel like they are fast because one can get exhausted, But do give them all that attention... it pays off in the long run.

Click to expand...

mrhau said:

I currently have Sony A6000, 16-50 kit, 35F18, 20F28; and RX100. My main focus is to take photos of my young baby and I mostly use the 35F18. I am pleased with the image clarity and the boken it offers. Given my girl starts walking and running around; 35F18 is too close to catch her actions, and I am looking for a longer range lens.

I am now looking for either
1) SEL18135
2) SEL55210
3) SEL70200F4
4) SEL85F18

Click to expand...

mrhau said:

What discourage me from getting the SEL55210 is the apparent lack of IQ and low light performance. And I suppose sooner or later I may need a lens to shoot her at performance in indoor setting; Would SEL55210 be bright enough for this? I reckon 70200 would be nicer but honestly I probably would not carry it too much given its weight so it is not my first choice. For me, I am happy w reasonable weight for great IQ. Maybe I can get the SEL18135 first and then get aother tele lens which can complement that and offers reasonable IQ?

Click to expand...

mrhau said:

I am actually quite happy with prime and hence am also thinking 85F18; though I have the feeling it is not tele enough for my purpose.

Click to expand...

mrhau said:

AHM said:

I have older kids, and I primarily use the 35F18. I think it's the perfect focal length. I usually can get close enough.

For the times they are further away, I have (recently) the 18-135. The 55-210 is useless: the kids will come up close soon enough, and 55mm is then very long. In addition my 55-210 is soft. I'm no purist about sharpness, but for the 55-210 you don't have to crop much to see softness even on a 4K screen.

Click to expand...

Am I right in understanding that you think 135mm from 18-135 has better IQ than 55-210? If so, that would be great to hear!

The other days I use 35F18 in outdoor playground and had great fun with it; but at time i find it too wide and I need to get quite close to get face portrait; actually with that in mind I was thinking/regretting not getting 50F18, which was said to have better boken.

How old are your kids BTW?

Interestingly, didn't expect having a kid would have such an impact on my lens choice.....

Click to expand...

REDunnLev said:

I recommend using the 50mm f/1.8 AND the 35mm f/1.8. I have both and I use them both. For general photography I use the 35mm f/1.8 and for portraits I use the 50mm f/1.8. I have a 16 month old and he moves too fast for me to try to zoom. I just used my primes and rarely have to crop. I almost always shoot at 1/160s and I use a flash ~80% of the time.

I have used my 18-105mm f/4 and I have no issues, especially when I use a flash. The IQ of the primes is superior so I use the primes. Since my son started walking I have not used the 18-105 except for on Easter Sunday because the primes are always on my camera and I do not want to increase my ISO too much. I highly recommend the primes, the zooms are just not fast enough.

Click to expand...

AHM said:

REDunnLev said:

I recommend using the 50mm f/1.8 AND the 35mm f/1.8. I have both and I use them both. For general photography I use the 35mm f/1.8 and for portraits I use the 50mm f/1.8. I have a 16 month old and he moves too fast for me to try to zoom. I just used my primes and rarely have to crop. I almost always shoot at 1/160s and I use a flash ~80% of the time.

I have used my 18-105mm f/4 and I have no issues, especially when I use a flash. The IQ of the primes is superior so I use the primes. Since my son started walking I have not used the 18-105 except for on Easter Sunday because the primes are always on my camera and I do not want to increase my ISO too much. I highly recommend the primes, the zooms are just not fast enough.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

REDunnLev said:

AHM said:

REDunnLev said:

I recommend using the 50mm f/1.8 AND the 35mm f/1.8. I have both and I use them both. For general photography I use the 35mm f/1.8 and for portraits I use the 50mm f/1.8. I have a 16 month old and he moves too fast for me to try to zoom. I just used my primes and rarely have to crop. I almost always shoot at 1/160s and I use a flash ~80% of the time.

I have used my 18-105mm f/4 and I have no issues, especially when I use a flash. The IQ of the primes is superior so I use the primes. Since my son started walking I have not used the 18-105 except for on Easter Sunday because the primes are always on my camera and I do not want to increase my ISO too much. I highly recommend the primes, the zooms are just not fast enough.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

liopleurodon said:

mrhau said:

I currently have Sony A6000, 16-50 kit, 35F18, 20F28; and RX100. My main focus is to take photos of my young baby and I mostly use the 35F18. I am pleased with the image clarity and the boken it offers. Given my girl starts walking and running around; 35F18 is too close to catch her actions, and I am looking for a longer range lens.

I am now looking for either
1) SEL18135
2) SEL55210
3) SEL70200F4
4) SEL85F18

Click to expand...

Maybe consider a 50/1.8 prime? I actually had the opposite experience I wanted something wider than my 35 and went with a 28/2. I also use a Canon 17-55 f/2.8 when I'm not shooting video.

liopleurodon said:

What discourage me from getting the SEL55210 is the apparent lack of IQ and low light performance. And I suppose sooner or later I may need a lens to shoot her at performance in indoor setting; Would SEL55210 be bright enough for this? I reckon 70200 would be nicer but honestly I probably would not carry it too much given its weight so it is not my first choice. For me, I am happy w reasonable weight for great IQ. Maybe I can get the SEL18135 first and then get aother tele lens which can complement that and offers reasonable IQ?

Click to expand...

I wouldn't use the SEL55210 indoors and expect good IQ, its too slow and its IQ isn't that great to begin with. Remember the longer the FL the faster the shutter you need to compensate. ISOs will climb quickly. My 55-250 STM I use is a bit faster, but I still find it too slow for indoor use. Also consider that in low light slower telephoto lenses have difficulty auto focusing quickly as the sensor doesn't have much light to work with.

liopleurodon said:

I am actually quite happy with prime and hence am also thinking 85F18; though I have the feeling it is not tele enough for my purpose.

Click to expand...

A lot people don't have any idea how little light there is indoors. Even with a room lit by 3 100W equivalent LEDs and shooting with 1/80s and f/2.8, I need to use ISO1600 to expose correctly with ambient light in the evening. With something like the SEL18135 or SEL55210 I'd need to either drop my shutter speed (not really acceptable when photographing a kid, 1/80 isn't even fast enough) or pump up the ISO unless I'm using flash. So you'd be looking at something like 1/80s, f/5.6 and ISO6400 which will cost you in the IQ department. I'm not advising against the zooms, just giving you some information to help your decision. You may want to consider renting a few lenses and seeing if they work for your needs. I would definitely rent the 85/1.8, the 18-135, and anything else you might consider.

Click to expand...

mrhau said:

REDunnLev said:

AHM said:

REDunnLev said:

I recommend using the 50mm f/1.8 AND the 35mm f/1.8. I have both and I use them both. For general photography I use the 35mm f/1.8 and for portraits I use the 50mm f/1.8. I have a 16 month old and he moves too fast for me to try to zoom. I just used my primes and rarely have to crop. I almost always shoot at 1/160s and I use a flash ~80% of the time.

I have used my 18-105mm f/4 and I have no issues, especially when I use a flash. The IQ of the primes is superior so I use the primes. Since my son started walking I have not used the 18-105 except for on Easter Sunday because the primes are always on my camera and I do not want to increase my ISO too much. I highly recommend the primes, the zooms are just not fast enough.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...