New Fuji Lens for newborn

Truman Prevatt wrote:

I would consider the new 50/2. It's the better portrait lens compared to 35mm. And when your child is getting older and is moving faster, it's autofocus is faster than the 35/1.4 and 56/1.2.

The 50 requires more room that one often has. The 35 doesn't would be much better in close quarters. I would go with either a 35 f1.4 or 23 f1.4 depending on the size of the rooms.

I don't have any problems with the 50mm indoors. It's way better than the 60mm I had before, and especially for newborns or younger childs, you won't have any problem to get them on the image from head to feet, even if you stand closer to them. In fact I did a picture from my 2 year old (head to feet), sleeping on the carpet. And I did that picture standing directly next to her.

Mons1eur wrote:

Wow! So many replies and advice on my question. Thanks a lot guys.
The consensus seems to be for 35mm now to decide between F1.2 or F2.

Don't let you fool you because there are many users voting for the 35mm. The 35 is one of the most sold lenses in Fujis lens lineup, almost everyone has a 35mm in it's bag. So it's obvious that many people use this lens, if they don't have a longer prime.

The 56mm is considered as THE Portrait lens, because it's 85mm equivalent that means the most natural look of faces. The shorter you get, the more unnaturally can a head or especially a nose look, if you get closer to the subject. So you need a bit of a distance, to get natural looking images of your newborn, and then it even might be a tad to short.

That's why I would also look at the 50/2. It's available since february, so it's obvious that not that many people here voted for this lens. If you have the chance to try these lenses out in a store, I would take that chance.

mbaginy wrote:

"Best lens for a new born" sounds as if you haven't fully learned to use and enjoy your existing gear. It is a fine lens, useable wide open and at all focal lengths. And I'm sure Fujifilm have approved its use for newborn children too!

No offense to the OP or any one but this is the best advice on this question.  Today (actually it has been a common misconception with photography for as long as I can remember and I have a long long memory) - new problem means you need new equipment.  The equipment is only a device for holding the sensor.  It is the photographer that takes and controls the image.

What needs to be done is develop you skill set with and knowledge of  your existing equipment first.  Once a person does that they usually surprise themselves.  How does one develop their sill set - the best way is to study under someone with experience and advanced skills.  That is take a course somewhere.

If that is not possible - experiment!  Many people don't take advantage of one of the key features of digital. That is if you own the camera - it cost nothing to take pictures.  There is no film to develop it.

My mentor when I ask him a question the first time he responded - "what have you tried"  Then after I answered he would ask, "what else can you try?"  Then he followed with, "why haven't you tired it?"  I sort of got the drill after the first time.  He would often throw in an idea or two I hadn't thought of if I had struggled enough.

With film it cost to experiment - with digital no film required.  So my advice to the OP is to just take what you have and experiment.  Find images other people have taken of babies and analyze them.  Then find what you like and try to replicate the look that you like.  Develop you knowledge of both photography and your equipment.  During this time you will be developing your skill.

Most likely you will find you don't need new equipment.

mbaginy wrote:

Truman, that's excellent advice, born of experience and knowledge.

Interesting that despite all the lenses I've collected over the years, I'm happiest with a 35mm (FF equivalent). Maybe that's why I mainly use my X100T. Saturday I visited the art exhibitions of Documenta 14 in Kassel (Germany). Took my X-T1 with three lenses and ended up using mai9nly the 23/1.4.

If I were sensible, I'd sell all gear except for the X100T. I guess I'm not that sensible. (Not yet)

Mike,

It takes time to find your comfort zone.  The latest equipment does not make the greatest shot.  Back in the 1970's was experimenting with my Nikon and had a bit of lens lust.  But since I was a starving student I didn't have much money.  I was in graduate school and also taking courses in art school and then there was the teaching requirements for grad school and I did some programming for one of the psychology professors at Hopkins for his research.  So not much money and not much time.

But I could not settle on a lens.  I kept experimenting and kept being disappointed.  My advisor at art school said - "just give it time - it will come."  Then one day a Leica rep was at class offering a great deal.  They were bringing out the new M5 and selling off their current M4 inventory to students with a 50 crone lens for a song.  I scraped together the money and bit.  After the first time I went out with the Leica - I basically put the Nikon in the closet.  I had no desire to get another lens for the puppy.  Interesting enough the Leica M5 was much bigger than the M4 and it was a huge flop.  No one was trading in their Leica for that beast and the prices on the used market went up.  Leica withdrew the M5 and brought back the M4 for several years while they worked on the M6.

To the day I bought my first digital - when I used a 35 mm camera it was the M4.  I added a 28 mm lens and at 70 eventually but most of the time the 50 was on the Leica.

So it eventually comes for most people.  A different camera is not going to make a bad photographer into a good photographer.  Working under someone better and experimenting will.  It is like anything else - you don't learn to shoot a jump shot or serve a tennis ball by buying new shoes or new tennis racquets.  You learn to shoot a jump shot by going to the play ground and practicing and maybe getting some pointers.  You learn to server a tennis ball but going to the court and practice and maybe getting some pointers along the way.

The one great thing about digital - other than give my wife her basement back - is to provide the ability to take almost unlimited shots at no cost.  If you are out and only have you iPhone with you - you can use that to practice.  When you see something of interest the first thought should be "how do I get this shot with my iPhone" and then experiment.  It cost nothing.  Take your camera put on a lens and go out and do the same thing.  Then do it again with a different lens.  Force yourself to take shots and then go back and evaluate them.  This experimentation will provide for amazing growth and knowledge as a photographer.  And with digital it doesn't cost a penny for film or development.

Mons1eur wrote:

Exactly the reason I put up the question here and did not just wander off to buy a lens based on the online reviews. I can use 35mm focal length on my current lens so I plan to use it and see how I go with it. Maybe I will go to the shops and try the 35mm f2.

One thing which I have noticed with 18-55, its autofocus is not very good so I tend to use manual focus more and get better results with it.

an interesting observation.. in what circumstances do you find the AF 'no very good'?

All the time?

just curious.

Hi,

a newborn needs no lens. A newborn needs his mothers breast.

Cheers

Tox

PS.: I think a fast 35/50/90 mm will be fine. I would not use a flash the first days/weeks.

PPS: And a "Welcome" to the Baby. Best wishes!

The 35mm f/1.4 is brilliant. I love it, love the way it renders compared to the 18-55.

I'd also strongly recommend the new 50mm f/2 if you can get it! It's quite a bit cheaper than the 56mm f/1.2 and lighter.