Lens suggestions for newborn photography

Help me understand using a 17mm (34mm effective) for pictures of people. The reason I'd never choose something that short is that it makes noses too big and ears too small.
Not always true.

Distortions like you described only happen when the photograper steps in too closely.
Well, if you want to fill the frame with baby-face (and the best thing about any newborn is their faces and those early, innocent smiles), 17mm will FORCE you to get up close to that little face -- so -- big noses. We're talking about portraits of small humans. 90-100mm (effective) is called a 'portrait lens' for exactly that reason.
I still don't hear your rationale for anything shorter than 45mm (90mm eq.). ???
“Portrait” does not always mean “only the face” — part of the face, the face, the head, the head and the shoulders, the head and half body, the head and full body…

Focal lengths are available for the discerning photographers to use suitably and creatively.

The 17mm (34mm equivalent) is not strictly inappropriate for portraits. Either the photog does not approach too closely or the photog intentionally uses its optical characteristics for dramatic effects.

Not good, not bad. Not yay, not nay.



b4cd1929edf94c68b3535835e22e958d.jpg
 
Last edited:
I would go with 25mm. It matches the perspective of the human eye. IMO babies don't need telephoto compression, and personally I don't like the wide angle look on human faces.

For my daughters I had the Voigtlander .95, which was great. It's manual focus, but they don't move very quickly at that age ;-)

4028a007faae4b8eb5c28f048b70d56e.jpg

Now I have the 25mm 1.2. This is a great lens and perfect for babies and people in general. It's really very versatile. Close focusing distance is one of the advantages of M43 over other formats. The PRO is bigger and heavier than the .95 Voigtlander, but it's worth it for the autofocus. I think the Voigtlander is slightly sharper, but the PRO has the feathered bokeh and is just a bit more special. Whoever said above get plenty of bokeh I agree with that, and a wide aperture 25mm is absolutely perfect for those purposes.

Before the kids can crawl you can pretty much shoot them with anything. I even used a Pentax 6x7, Rolleicord and Polaroid SX70 ;-) Once they start to crawl and run then a modern camera and lens with AF is very useful.

I'm sure the 17mm and 45mm are also great, and there are other decent 25mm lenses available for m43, but you can tell my favourite lens by my user name ;-) I still use it for my kids now they are more grown up, it just gives a lovely rendering to everyday life - it's a lens for life.

EDIT - PS - enjoy these early days, they are really magical. The above photo was taken on day 5. Very happy memories and glad that I have some photos to call them back to mind.
I have been taking photos since the 1970's back in the film days. I never particularly liked 50mm as a focal length. I think because I liked picking up the camera and seeing the world in a somewhat different way with either a wider or narrower field of view. Sort of stirred my creative juices.

My current love of the 50mm focal length started when I picked up a Pro 25mm f1.2 lens. I agree it is a fantastic lens (the 17mm and 45mm f1.2 are great too). The 25mm f1.2 was the last of the f1.2 Pro lenses I picked up but it has become my favorite. So much so that I also invested in a GM 50/1.4 for my FF system :-)
 
Hi All,

We've just got home from hospital with my newborn daughter after a longer than planned stay! Mum and baby are both doing well now.

Most of my lenses are geared to wildlife/landscape so I don’t have any fast aperture non tele lenses at the moment. I want something to do some newborn portraits while we'restill in the early days (I have little experince of anything other than candid shots but have a new found interest). I want something to give a nice fall off and dreamy background look.

I was looking buying one of the f1.2/1.4 pro primes (probaly 25/40) plus/minus the 75mm 1.8. What are people's experience of using these lenses and focal lengths for creating this type of image.

I've updated my gear list so you can see what I currently own..
Congratulations!!

Without a doubt, this grandma is telling you to go buy the Zuiko 45mm f1.8. There is simply no better choice in an M43 portrait lens, and a PRIME PORTRAIT LENS is what you need.

1) You want to fill the frame with the baby's face without GETTING IN THE BABY'S FACE!! 45mm (90mm eq) is perfect for this. Anything less than 90mm is not enough.

2) You want BOKEH BABY! The baby's face should be in focus from earlobes to nostrils, with backgrounds blurred silky-smooth, and you need REALLY tight control over DoF to get this just right.

3) The lens needs to be fast enough to shoot in available light, your best shots will happen in a darkened room, with just enough natural light coming in through a window in the nursery. Again, the F1.8 is perfect, I usually don't need to open it more than f2.
Go Get Them Keepsake Shots Dad!
I do not have time to read every reply, but this lens suggestion is a very good one. This is my favorite lens (not that i have a ton).

I bought my first "real" camera (Canon SL1) because i wanted to be able to take better shots of my kid than a point and shoot fujifilm. Though objectively my MFT gear is better, the early years shots of the baby/toddler are some of my favorites - and that is not even a stellar camera, just an entry dslr.

I will also suggest, while you have plenty of time to learn baby photography on your new unwitting subject, your window to get classic posed newborn shots is not that big. You may find it worth paying someone who does mostly that, as they'll have the props and make it not stressful. A lot depends on your wife's buyin with this one ... as you shall surely discover :P
 
I would go with 25mm. It matches the perspective of the human eye. IMO babies don't need telephoto compression, and personally I don't like the wide angle look on human faces.

For my daughters I had the Voigtlander .95, which was great. It's manual focus, but they don't move very quickly at that age ;-)

4028a007faae4b8eb5c28f048b70d56e.jpg

Now I have the 25mm 1.2. This is a great lens and perfect for babies and people in general. It's really very versatile. Close focusing distance is one of the advantages of M43 over other formats. The PRO is bigger and heavier than the .95 Voigtlander, but it's worth it for the autofocus. I think the Voigtlander is slightly sharper, but the PRO has the feathered bokeh and is just a bit more special. Whoever said above get plenty of bokeh I agree with that, and a wide aperture 25mm is absolutely perfect for those purposes.

Before the kids can crawl you can pretty much shoot them with anything. I even used a Pentax 6x7, Rolleicord and Polaroid SX70 ;-) Once they start to crawl and run then a modern camera and lens with AF is very useful.

I'm sure the 17mm and 45mm are also great, and there are other decent 25mm lenses available for m43, but you can tell my favourite lens by my user name ;-) I still use it for my kids now they are more grown up, it just gives a lovely rendering to everyday life - it's a lens for life.

EDIT - PS - enjoy these early days, they are really magical. The above photo was taken on day 5. Very happy memories and glad that I have some photos to call them back to mind.
I have been taking photos since the 1970's back in the film days. I never particularly liked 50mm as a focal length. I think because I liked picking up the camera and seeing the world in a somewhat different way with either a wider or narrower field of view. Sort of stirred my creative juices.

My current love of the 50mm focal length started when I picked up a Pro 25mm f1.2 lens. I agree it is a fantastic lens (the 17mm and 45mm f1.2 are great too). The 25mm f1.2 was the last of the f1.2 Pro lenses I picked up but it has become my favorite. So much so that I also invested in a GM 50/1.4 for my FF system :-)
It's very special, and one of the things that keeps me exclusively with m43. I like that you get the wide open look, and hence the feathered bokeh, but without the DOF being super super shallow. Detractors say that f/2.4 FF equivalent is not a properly narrow DOF, i.e. it's not a proper f/1.2. And I agree - I just happen to like that look - both eyes in focus and that slightly swirly background that just melts away! Helps me focus on what's important ;-)
 
Help me understand using a 17mm (34mm effective) for pictures of people. The reason I'd never choose something that short is that it makes noses too big and ears too small.
Not always true.

Distortions like you described only happen when the photograper steps in too closely.
Well, if you want to fill the frame with baby-face (and the best thing about any newborn is their faces and those early, innocent smiles), 17mm will FORCE you to get up close to that little face -- so -- big noses. We're talking about portraits of small humans. 90-100mm (effective) is called a 'portrait lens' for exactly that reason.
I still don't hear your rationale for anything shorter than 45mm (90mm eq.). ???
“Portrait” does not always mean “only the face” — part of the face, the face, the head, the head and the shoulders, the head and half body, the head and full body…

Focal lengths are available for the discerning photographers to use suitably and creatively.

The 17mm (34mm equivalent) is not strictly inappropriate for portraits. Either the photog does not approach too closely or the photog intentionally uses its optical characteristics for dramatic effects.

Not good, not bad. Not yay, not nay.
I still don't hear any rationale for anything shorter than than 45mm (90mm eq.). Literally, the definition of a 'Portrait Lens' is a fast lens with focal lengths in the 90-105mm range (equivalent). Are you a 'yay' on at least that?
 
Help me understand using a 17mm (34mm effective) for pictures of people. The reason I'd never choose something that short is that it makes noses too big and ears too small.
Not always true.

Distortions like you described only happen when the photograper steps in too closely.
Well, if you want to fill the frame with baby-face (and the best thing about any newborn is their faces and those early, innocent smiles), 17mm will FORCE you to get up close to that little face -- so -- big noses. We're talking about portraits of small humans. 90-100mm (effective) is called a 'portrait lens' for exactly that reason.
I still don't hear your rationale for anything shorter than 45mm (90mm eq.). ???
“Portrait” does not always mean “only the face” — part of the face, the face, the head, the head and the shoulders, the head and half body, the head and full body…

Focal lengths are available for the discerning photographers to use suitably and creatively.

The 17mm (34mm equivalent) is not strictly inappropriate for portraits. Either the photog does not approach too closely or the photog intentionally uses its optical characteristics for dramatic effects.

Not good, not bad. Not yay, not nay.
I still don't hear any rationale for anything shorter than than 45mm (90mm eq.). Literally, the definition of a 'Portrait Lens' is a fast lens with focal lengths in the 90-105mm range (equivalent). Are you a 'yay' on at least that?
My approach for infants is not typically head shots, more an "environmental" approach to their tiny world. YMMV

Wish to be closer and WA to normal is what takes me there, not a 2X short tele.

Once they're mobile and scooting around things change.
 
SusanLane wrote:

Literally, the definition of a 'Portrait Lens' is a fast lens with focal lengths in the 90-105mm range (equivalent). Are you a 'yay' on at least that?
Neither yay nor nay, neither right nor wrong, regarding that range of focal lengths. Also, “fast” (eg f/1.2 or f/1.4, wide open) is not strictly needed.

Literally? Definition? Now, that's a big definite nay.

I am afraid you are being too rigid with respect to general without-context suggestions. They are not rules or laws.

50e4d3acd6944594afd04e1342c62041.jpg

This image was not created by me using a fast prime lens with focal length in 90–100mm range (equivalent). Definitely not f/1.2, f/1.4, f/1.6, f/1.8, f/2, f/2.5…

A “crime” in your book? ;)
 
Last edited:
Literally, the definition of a 'Portrait Lens' is a fast lens with focal lengths in the 90-105mm range (equivalent). Are you a 'yay' on at least that?
Neither yay nor nay, neither right nor wrong, regarding that range of focal lengths. Also, “fast” (eg f/1.2 or f/1.4, wide open) is not strictly needed.

Literally? Definition? Now, that's a big definite nay.

I am afraid you are being too rigid with respect to general without-context suggestions. They are not rules or laws.

50e4d3acd6944594afd04e1342c62041.jpg

This image was not created by me using a fast prime lens with focal length in 90–100mm range (equivalent). Definitely not f/1.2, f/1.4, f/1.8, f/2, f/2.5, f/2.8…

A “crime” in your book? ;)
In my book, a Portrait lens is one which you use to take a portrait. Traditionally that may be within a particular range, but I have personally seen some spectacular portraits, taken with anything from fisheyes to 500mm FF.
-
OK, portraits demand different lenses and techniques depending on the subject, and what you are attempting to achieve. Certain lenses bring qualities to the table that others do not. Even within the same focal lengths the variation between lens attributes can be enormous.
-
Knowing the subject and how they are lit, when they are lit, and why they are being portrayed in that manner, then marrying that with your 'vision', will often determine the kind of lens you may wish to use.
-
I am fortunate to have some wonderful 'portrait' lenses... 12-40mm, 30mm, 45mm, 56mm, to name a few, but in truth I have lenses ranging from 9mm to 150mm for portraiture, and I wouldn't hesitate to use any of them if the shot demanded it. Along with a set of older manual glass that bring completely different qualities to the table, like the Takumar 35,55,105,150, primes... all beautiful portrait lenses, but with specific characters that add variation to the palette.
-
Limiting your creative vision to a 'Traditional FL' may be efficacious on occasion, but it needn't define the totality of all portraiture. That would be crazy!
-
That said... New Born shots is what this is about, how to grab some beauties without getting in the way, disturbing the infants sleep, distorting already peculiar features, yet having the flexibility to use it in various lighting scenarios, and distances, getting both environmental portraits and head shots, probably inside due to the nature of keeping babes warm in cooler climates and seasons. All, while not breaking the bank, which might be better used lavishing surprises on the mother in question! ;)
-
-Olympus 45mm f1.8 covers all the bases... cheap as chips, spectacularly beautiful, sharp as a razor at f4 across the frame, but gives you good distance to capture both indoor environmental images, and close up. (other 45's in MFT do a similar job)
-Panasonic 30mm f2.8 Macro is also an inexpensive option, great indoor portrait lens, slightly slower, but enables close up images, as close as you like, and as sharp as the Oly 45 across the frame from f2.8-5.6. ( you may want to shoot a close feature)
-Sigma 56mm f1.4, a stunning portrait lens, but if indoors you need larger rooms to take advantage of it, although it offers the added bonus of being semi-candid, and will get you out from under the feet of a feeding mother and child.
-
Special time of your life... however you capture it, don't forget to be present. <3

Macro's can be handy! ;)
Macro's can be handy! ;)

--
Photography is poetry made visible; it is the art of painting with light!
 
Last edited:
Help me understand using a 17mm (34mm effective) for pictures of people. The reason I'd never choose something that short is that it makes noses too big and ears too small.
Not always true.

Distortions like you described only happen when the photograper steps in too closely.
Well, if you want to fill the frame with baby-face (and the best thing about any newborn is their faces and those early, innocent smiles), 17mm will FORCE you to get up close to that little face -- so -- big noses. We're talking about portraits of small humans. 90-100mm (effective) is called a 'portrait lens' for exactly that reason.
I still don't hear your rationale for anything shorter than 45mm (90mm eq.). ???
“Portrait” does not always mean “only the face” — part of the face, the face, the head, the head and the shoulders, the head and half body, the head and full body…

Focal lengths are available for the discerning photographers to use suitably and creatively.

The 17mm (34mm equivalent) is not strictly inappropriate for portraits. Either the photog does not approach too closely or the photog intentionally uses its optical characteristics for dramatic effects.

Not good, not bad. Not yay, not nay.
I still don't hear any rationale for anything shorter than than 45mm (90mm eq.). Literally, the definition of a 'Portrait Lens' is a fast lens with focal lengths in the 90-105mm range (equivalent). Are you a 'yay' on at least that?
I've provided examples of where wider lenses can be used effectively for environmental portraits. I'm curious what you think of the photos in this thread? As others have said "portrait" can be a pretty broad brush. I would imagine that the vast majority of the "portraits" of my daughter were likely done with focal lengths <50mm equiv.
 
Help me understand using a 17mm (34mm effective) for pictures of people. The reason I'd never choose something that short is that it makes noses too big and ears too small.
Not always true.

Distortions like you described only happen when the photograper steps in too closely.
Well, if you want to fill the frame with baby-face (and the best thing about any newborn is their faces and those early, innocent smiles), 17mm will FORCE you to get up close to that little face -- so -- big noses. We're talking about portraits of small humans. 90-100mm (effective) is called a 'portrait lens' for exactly that reason.
I still don't hear your rationale for anything shorter than 45mm (90mm eq.). ???
“Portrait” does not always mean “only the face” — part of the face, the face, the head, the head and the shoulders, the head and half body, the head and full body…

Focal lengths are available for the discerning photographers to use suitably and creatively.

The 17mm (34mm equivalent) is not strictly inappropriate for portraits. Either the photog does not approach too closely or the photog intentionally uses its optical characteristics for dramatic effects.

Not good, not bad. Not yay, not nay.
I still don't hear any rationale for anything shorter than than 45mm (90mm eq.). Literally, the definition of a 'Portrait Lens' is a fast lens with focal lengths in the 90-105mm range (equivalent). Are you a 'yay' on at least that?
Shorter lenses (c. 50mm FFE) more accurately recreate the perspective of the human eye. That is my rationale for shooting portraits with a "normal" lens.
 
A very nice discussion here.

When I had my children, I started out with a Fuji X20. Some things worked, but I was struggling with the light. The Fuji is extremely nice regarding "hitting the moment" due to the direct vision viewfinder, but struggled with the amount of light in-doors (Northern Europe in Winter). I "upgraded" to an E-M10 (Mk I) with the Oly 14-42/3.5-5.6 PZ and the Oly 45/1.8. Most of my pictures were in-doors and I didn't like using the flash (I have a Metz 54). The 14-42 is a piece of junk in my view, in particular at the long end. But also at the wide end it's colour contrast leaves a lot to be desired (reference Oly 12/2.0, which I bought for landscape work many years before).

The 45/1.8 worked pretty well. I typically used it fully open to keep the ISO in camera down. I just needed it's light gathering powers. The focal length worked well for me. I got nice pictures of the children playing seemingly unobserved, from a reasonable distance. The set-up is quite small and nonintrusive.

I later added a Panasonic/Leica Summilux 25/1.4 for when I wanted to include more of the surroundings. At the time I looked and many samples and comparisons to the Oly 25/1.8. The Summilux is faster and to me the out of focus image is superior. The Olympus 25/1.8 is slightly wider, which I might have preferred. At the time the Summilux over the Olympus was a financial stretch to me. When I look at the samples in this thread, my dislike of the out of focus image of the 25/1.8 is confirmed. My typical working apertures on the Summilux were 1.4 and 1.6. The 1.6 reduced a lot of the vignetting. That lens has seldom been used north of 2.0.

Based on my experience, for a new born I would start with a 45 or 42.5. A 1.2 might be preferably for it's light gathering powers but then it is larger and more intimidating and costs a lot more than the 45/1.8. Swings and roundabouts.

I would add a 25mm. I recommend the Summilux 1.4 if you budget allows. It is faster and, in my view, has the better out of focus image than the Oly 1.8. It still quite small and might be the sweet spot between speed and size. I never handled a 25/1.2 though. I can see that the speed for a 1.2 lens would be an advantage, but then this is large.

A f/2.8 zoom comes in handy when the children go outdoors. I actually got quite nice outdoor pictures with a 40-150/4.0-5.6, though currently due to sporting activities in the twilight I have a need for a fast telephoto. A f/2.8 lens would not be enough.

Prior to having children I never got on much with a normal lens (50mm equivalent). I always was a 35mm equivalent person. For the children I suddenly found a 50mm equivalent suddenly very useful. I didn't miss the 35mm equivalent much and currently cover that range with a 12-45/4.0. The examples shown here convinced me to go slow (or scrap) my buying project for a 17/1.8 or 20/1.4.

I hope this contribution is still appreciated.
 
Constant f/2.8 to 600mm from 25mm.

4K video from which can take 8MP stills.

DFD focusing that's on plenty Pany mirrorless.

Trifle lumpy in size compared to a svelte E-P/L series, M-10 series M-5 series.

Still Fz300 Fz330 has so much going for it would cover plenty of bases for baby to toddler photos videos from close up macro of eyes to full body to toddler running around different lighting situations.

£270 UK with warranty.

https://www.dpreview.com/products/panasonic/compacts/panasonic_dmcfz300

Am properly considering trading in my G80/G85 + Pany 45-175 for a Fz300 Fz330 having tested it instore few days ago.

--
Photography after all is interplay of light alongside perspective.
 
Last edited:

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top