Advice on lens(es)...first child on the way

[mwier]

So first child is due in a few short months and I am looking to upgrade my lens for taking what I plan to be many photos of both this child and (hopefully) more to come! Currently have t4i with 18-135 stm kit lens. I've already read a number of other posts on this topic. My questions are:

1) What would be a good lens and focal length for newborn/baby photos? I am considering the 50 /1.4 or 40 /2.8 stm. Price excluded, which would work best for this purpose? We have a newly built home, is pretty roomy with good natural light (other than the fact that this time of year in Michigan it's dark by the time I'm home from work.....)

2) Once the kids start running around, I see the canon 17-55 /2.8 gets rave reviews, or should I just add an external flash with the kit lens?

3) For taking photos at the hospital, should I look into the 17-55 sooner rather than later? Or would a prime work ok here? Seems that 50mm might be too long. Would prefer not using flash with a newborn.

My main area of focus with photography is kids/family/vacation stuff at this time. Thanks!

 

[Lars J]

I would definitely recommend the 40mm 2.8 STM... I have close to the same setup as you (SL1 with 18-135), and the low light capability *and* bokeh you can get on the 40mm is very good - at least compared to the 18-135. Contrast and CA is also much improved from the zoom.

The 40mm is very sharp down to 2.8, and I think I've the vast majority of my shots with the lens at 2.8. (compared to my 50mm 1.8, which has to be stopped down to 2.8 to get any sharpness - I have not used my 50mm since I got my 40mm) I'm VERY happy with it.

 

[Jonathan Brady]

So first child is due in a few short months

CONGRATS!!!!!

and I am looking to upgrade my lens for taking what I plan to be many photos of both this child and (hopefully) more to come!

Sounds familiar...

Currently have t4i with 18-135 stm kit lens. I've already read a number of other posts on this topic. My questions are:

1) What would be a good lens and focal length for newborn/baby photos? I am considering the 50 /1.4 or 40 /2.8 stm. Price excluded, which would work best for this purpose? We have a newly built home, is pretty roomy with good natural light (other than the fact that this time of year in Michigan it's dark by the time I'm home from work.....)

The strengths of the 18-135 STM are

• the enormous focal range
• silent/fast focusing - especially helpful for video
• the IQ (Image Quality) at wide to medium focal lengths (this is where it performs best, 40-50mm included)

The weaknesses of course are

• not very "fast" in terms of aperture
• reduced (yet still respectable) IQ at longer focal lengths

Babies and toddlers are small. Many people don't anticipate just how small they are and tend to think of lens needs based on traditional photography needs. A "head and shoulders" shot of a person (typically done with an 85-135mm Full Frame equivalent focal length, or longer) will capture the entire body of a newborn baby and much of their surroundings if shot from the same distance.

This shot was captured with my EF 135mm f/2 L on my 6D (a T4i equivalent lens in terms of mm would be the 85mm) from... I don't know... about 6-8' away



I also cropped it just a tad (not much honestly). Also, I shot it with strong natural light coming in (shot just before 11am) and I was still at ISO5000 and f/2. So, a flash which can be bounced can be HUGELY helpful for indoor pictures, even if you don't decide to use it right away.

Here's another shot with the same lens and camera but after the sun went down that same day. I used bounce flash off the wall in front of her...



Same setup, just added the flash. This shot would not have happened without flash. I would have to be at 25000 ISO or more! lol

So, unless you're wanting some "environmental" shots (which you may and those can be REALLY nice), I'd consider longer focal lengths than 40 and 50mm. Here's a GREAT post about what you can get with wider primes - http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/38762824 As you can see from that link, MUCH more thought needs to go into shooting wider shots. But the reward can be ENORMOUS!

2) Once the kids start running around, I see the canon 17-55 /2.8 gets rave reviews, or should I just add an external flash with the kit lens?

I'd say get the external flash anyway. For running kids, I find a fast-focusing prime is GREAT. I bought a LOT of equipment to capture my daughter running around and then slowly whittled it down again over time when I realized that 1) they don't run around like crazy demons for long (her phase lasted about 6 months) and 2) how many "action" shots did I really need? (you get a few and then they all tend to look the same - lol)

In terms of just catching kids moving... it's an eye opening experience. Usually, they're looking down at the ground. Not the best look for pictures. Also, camera AF ability helps and IMO, makes a bigger difference than the lenses. The T4i has the same AF as my prior 60D and I caught a lot of action shots with that camera. It will do well if you learn how to use it properly (learn how to use "back button focusing" and AI Servo with High Speed Continous shooting and shoot in 3+ image bursts to capture "moments" easier). You may find yourself wanting to upgrade to something like the 70D for it's superior AF and FPS (Frames Per Second) ability. Also, if you do, it's live view and more importantly for someone with a new kid, it's video capabilities are definitely better than the T4i. The 18-135 STM you have will pair VERY well with the 70D, should you choose to go down that road later.

3) For taking photos at the hospital, should I look into the 17-55 sooner rather than later? Or would a prime work ok here? Seems that 50mm might be too long. Would prefer not using flash with a newborn.

Well... it depends on what kind of shots you want to take. Are you just wanting images of the baby? Or are you wanting some of mom too? Plus visitors? Etc.? If you just want the baby, as I mentioned above a "longer" lens would be fine. If you want more "environment", wider focal lengths will work best. f/2.8 will definitely be helpful but lighting inside of a hospital isn't really strong, especially in the mother-baby-units. So, you're going to be cranking up your ISO to compensate, even at f/2.8. That's not a bad thing as a noisy picture is still better than no picture. Just be prepared. Black and white conversions tend to look just fine with a lot of noise in them and for such a classic moment, B/W may work really well.

Here's one from the other night I converted...



ISO 12800 - shot with the 6D + 135 at f/4. I cropped quite a bit off as I was standing across the room about 8' away. My (pregnant) wife was reading Kyla her bedtime stories and I thought a moment like this was AWESOME!

As far as using flash... I wouldn't use on-camera flash. It's tiny and harsh. If you're considering flash, I'd get something that bounces like the 430 EX II and angle it behind you and up so that it bounces off of a wall/ceiling corner and REALLY plan your shots so you only have to take one. I don't think flash is a big deal when it's indirect like that. But it's personal preference. If Mom is against it, drop that fight right now lol

My main area of focus with photography is kids/family/vacation stuff at this time. Thanks!

Your 18-135 will shine for this! Here are some other lenses to consider...

Sigma 30mm f/1.4 ART - it's a little wider than what you're looking at which can be great to capture the surroundings and it's REALLY sharp and really fast/bright

Canon 35mm f/2 (IS or not) - the IS lens is newer with better IQ and obviously, IS. The angle of view will be similar to the Sigma above.

the 40 and 50 you mentioned already

Canon 60mm f/2.8 macro - AWESOME lens and because it's a macro lens, can get ULTRA close. For close up shots (toes, fingers, lips, nose, ear, etc.) you'll want to use it at f/8-f/16 so you'll need a LOT of light for that - bounce flash will be your friend! Take those types of shots when the baby is sleeping. It also performs incredibly well as a portrait lens.

Canon 85mm f/1.8 - this lens was glued to my 60D and then 70D for MONTHS. It focuses extremely quickly and performs very well wide open and slightly stopped down (f/1.8-f/2.5) and great at f/2.8+

So... I know I didn't give you any definitive answers but that's because your shooting style really needs to dictate what you purchase. But hopefully knowing these options and scenarios will be helpful. If you read this and can bounce some info back based on what I've typed here, I (and I'm sure others too) will try and help you narrow things down a bit.

 

[Al Downie]

I'd get two: 35mm f2 IS, and the 85mm f1.8.

For the first six months the baby isn't going to be very active, so I reckon most of your photos will be more environmental, mother & child shots - give yourself room to work beside the best north-facing window in the house. The IS will be useful when they're both sleeping - there will be a lot of that!

Good luck with everything, and enjoy the ride!

 

[Jim Cassatt]

With four grandchildren, I take a lot of pictures of kids. Sometimes people even pay me.

Right now, my favorite setup is the 15-135 f3.5.5.6 on my Fuji X-E2, same focal length as your lens. As was pointed out, you will use the telephoto end a lot more than the wide angle end. I would say that you would be best served by a good external flash and learning how to use it bounced off a ceiling or wall. There is no evidence that the flash will affect the vision of a newborn. Bounced, I am typically using ISO 800 at f5.6. That is not a lot of light. Even in the studio, the intensity of the flash is less that that of the sun.

As far as a lens with a large aperture to get nice blurry backgrounds. I find that I need more depth of field because kids move around so much that some margin of error is very useful.

One thing I don't know is how fast your lens focuses. I do know that when I had my Canon 300D I got a lot of mileage out of the fast focusing 28-105 f3.5-4.5 USM. I had the 50 mm f1.8, but found the focusing to be slow.

Finally congratulations. Have fun.

Note the pictures below were taken with bounce flash.













--
Jim

Galleries by Jim Cassatt

www.pbase.com

 

[tr573]

Congrats!



Our second daughter was born in October, and I just brought the 40mm pancake on my 6D to the hospital, along with a 90EX for a little fill-in flash. Was very happy with the results I got, and I didn't have to drag along a ton of gear - the new 24mm pancake on crop will give you about the same AOV.



As far as traditional portrait "rules" for focal length, I personally don't think they necessarily apply much to babies and toddlers - they have exaggerated features with giant heads anyway, and I kindof like the extra exaggeration/emphasis getting up close puts on that.

With my 2.5 year old, if you're not really close and engaging with her, she will run off to do something else anyway. It takes a lot of interaction to keep them interested and still - and as Jonathan said, when they are running around, they are mostly looking down at the floor so the pictures won't be very good anyway - so worry about that later.






@the hospital, 40mm 2.8, 90EX




@the hospital, 40mm 2.8, 90EX

 

[chrismosk]

Having 4 kids and going through over one dozen lenses, I could easily say the best lens is the 50 1.8 or 1.4 - especially for the hospital. It is fast, sharp, great contrast, if you want to zoom, use your feet. I used this lens on all 4 kids and took breathtaking photos. After they get a bit older and you want variety, I would recommend the 24-70 range (on FF).

 

[Al Downie]

Having 4 kids and going through over one dozen lenses, I could easily say the best lens is the 50 1.8 or 1.4 - especially for the hospital.

On a crop sensor body?

 

[chrismosk]

Yep, first kid was shot with nifty fifty and 10d, some of the best photos of any of them...

 

[arty H]

On a crop, you want to stay at 1600 ISO or lower. I would recommend the 35F2IS. The 50 mm focal length may be too long for cramped spots, like bath photos. The 35 will also let you get nice closeup shots of little hands and feet. I recommend at least one fast prime, like the 35F2. This lens is perfect on a crop for family portraits.

The newest generation of crop cameras may do a bit better in low light, but Imwould still want a fast prime for natural lighting

F2.8 won't work in my home at night on a crop camera, and flash may be nixed by the mother, even bounce flash. Many of the suggestions for F2.8 lenses assume you can up the ISO to pretty high levels, with little cost. However, this is for full frame cameras, like the 6D or 5DIII. If you boost ISO to very high levels, you will pay a price in loss of detail on a crop body. An F2 lens (or faster) will give you the extra boost that will let you avoid high ISO settings. If you are taking photos of the mother and baby, you may want to stop down a bit, but you may be able to get away with apertures larger than F2.8, i.e., F2.2 or 2.5.

 

[Jonathan Brady]

I'd get two: 35mm f2 IS, and the 85mm f1.8.

For the first six months the baby isn't going to be very active, so I reckon most of your photos will be more environmental, mother & child shots - give yourself room to work beside the best north-facing window in the house. The IS will be useful when they're both sleeping - there will be a lot of that!

Good luck with everything, and enjoy the ride!

--

...

Family etc.

flic.kr

I didn't want to recommend specific lenses but if I did, those would be the 2 I'd recommend.

 

[Lars J]

On a crop, you want to stay at 1600 ISO or lower. I would recommend the 35F2IS. The 50 mm focal length may be too long for cramped spots, like bath photos. The 35 will also let you get nice closeup shots of little hands and feet. I recommend at least one fast prime, like the 35F2. This lens is perfect on a crop for family portraits.

The newest generation of crop cameras may do a bit better in low light, but Imwould still want a fast prime for natural lighting

F2.8 won't work in my home at night on a crop camera, and flash may be nixed by the mother, even bounce flash. Many of the suggestions for F2.8 lenses assume you can up the ISO to pretty high levels, with little cost. However, this is for full frame cameras, like the 6D or 5DIII. If you boost ISO to very high levels, you will pay a price in loss of detail on a crop body. An F2 lens (or faster) will give you the extra boost that will let you avoid high ISO settings. If you are taking photos of the mother and baby, you may want to stop down a bit, but you may be able to get away with apertures larger than F2.8, i.e., F2.2 or 2.5.

The ISO sensitivity has little to do with crop factor these days, and the newer crop bodies do quite well. The difference is not nearly as significant as it used to be. I can get decent result at ISO 6400 from my SL1/100D.

If more light is needed, instead of spending tons of cash on high-priced L glass (like some here suggest), get an decent flash. (like the 430exII) This is a good idea anyway. And bounced flash is far less obtrusive/disturbing to a baby.

 

[Lars J]

Yep, first kid was shot with nifty fifty and 10d, some of the best photos of any of them...

--
http://www.moskowitzfamily.net/sig2.jpg
-T h a n k s C C M

But while cheap, the nifty-fifty isn't really that great at 1.8. At least my copy is very soft, I have to go to 2.8 to get something close to sharp.

These days, I would recommend the 40mm 2.8 over the 50mm 1.8 in a heartbeat. It is very sharp, even wide open at 2.8.

And on a crop body, 40mm is slightly less constraining than 50mm.

Here is a recent shot with my 40mm, using a bounced flash (430ex): (slight blur due to my niece moving!)

 

[chrismosk]

wow, look at my equipment list. The nifty 50 rivals ALL of those lenses. You must have received a bad version. I still can't believe the $70 I paid for it rivals lenses in excess of 3k - sharp wise (not necessarily bokeh, color and contrast)

 

[Lars J]

wow, look at my equipment list. The nifty 50 rivals ALL of those lenses. You must have received a bad version. I still can't believe the $70 I paid for it rivals lenses in excess of 3k - sharp wise (not necessarily bokeh, color and contrast)

 

[chrismosk]

It's so good for the money, I'd buy another one, it's truly impressive.