Best Lens for Baby Pictures.

I have gone through all 9 pages of replies and it seems 17-55 is the general consensus but in my opinion the "Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 L IS USM Macro Lens" is also not a bad choice either.

Since it is a macro lens it will allow you to take real close pictures of the new born and really minute details like their tiny hands/feet,eyes..etc

also 100mm focal length will give you decent working distance and you can use the same for portraits. the F stop is the same as the 17-55 (F2.8)
when the kids grow older you can still use the 100mm focal length and did I mention its a Macro lens. So it will be useful for macro photography.

REVIEW: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx

Thank you for your response DSLR_Newbie, its interesting that you mentioned a Macro lens. Is there a different way to shoot with a Macro lens vs. non Macro?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Magijr

Thank you for your response DSLR_Newbie, its interesting that you mentioned a Macro lens. Is there a different way to shoot with a Macro lens vs. non Macro?

---

The lens DSLR_Newbie mentions, the EF 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro will work the same as a normal lens. It is actually a good portrait lens and a good telephoto lens. You can shoot this one like a regular lens; you can use it like a regular lens very close up. If you are going to just do Macro there are techniques to get the best results. Some of those would be using a tripod, using a macro slider, shooting in live view so you can focus on the fine detail, using a mechanical release to limit camera shake. But for the 100mm F/2.8L you can just pick it up, get close to your subject and take pictures no problem. No Macro experience required.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

The lens DSLR_Newbie mentions, the EF 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro will work the same as a normal lens. It is actually a good portrait lens and a good telephoto lens. You can shoot this one like a regular lens; you can use it like a regular lens very close up. If you are going to just do Macro there are techniques to get the best results. Some of those would be using a tripod, using a macro slider, shooting in live view so you can focus on the fine detail, using a mechanical release to limit camera shake. But for the 100mm F/2.8L you can just pick it up, get close to your subject and take pictures no problem. No Macro experience required.

---

As HDNitehawk explained the EF 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro works like a normal 100mm lens but also doubles as macro lens for close up details, so you get a multipurpose lens. Also this lens has the latest canon IS system (Hybrid Image Stabilizing) so you can hand hold it and still get excellent detailed images.

it is a "L" Lens so the build quality is exceptional and it will hold its price for a long period of time and it is the same price(if not cheaper) as the 17-55mm.

you can search in Google images (http://images.google.com/) for "macro baby photography" and see a few sample images. if you like what you see then this is the lens you want. I have added some pictures from Google as well.

I am not sure what the forum policies are for posting external (not mine) pictures. (Apologies if I am breaking any forum rules).

Attachment 1330Attachment 1331Attachment 1332

Thank you for the suggestion on the macro. Even if I do not purchase one now, I will certainly rent one for pics of my baby similar to the examples you provided.

I went to a local photo shop, Milford Photo, and spent an hour with a very passionate (Cannon favored) photographer. We went through the ins and outs, pros and cons of the 5DII, the 7D and the 6D. I am favoring the 7D and the 6D. Obviously the 5DII is an amazing camera, and the FF is better quality, but it's too pricey and I feel it's too complicated for me as a beginner. I like the features of the 7D and 6D... they make the Rebel seem like a toy.

Does anyone have any experience with the Firmware update for the 7D released a month or so ago?

A macro lens would be interesting for tiny toes, etc., yes. Also nifty for bugs and flowers shot at a distance of just a few inches from the end of the lens.

But if you are planning on only having one good (I would not count the kit lens as "good") lens for any length of time you will find that a fixed length lens at 100mm is too long (too zoomed-in) for a lot of shots. On a crop-body that is, well, 1.6x more true.

If I were going to have 1 single prime as my only lens, I would choose something of more average length, like 35mm or 40mm or 50mm. But still I think most shooters with only 1 lens would opt for a zoom lens, giving you a range of lengths (17-55 etc..), and maybe make a prime their second lens later on. If you are shooting hands, even tiny ones, rather than really tiny stuff like aphids or flies, you can crop a photo taken with a good-quality normal lens enough to get those finger shots just fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Magijr

Obviously the 5DII is an amazing camera, and the FF is better quality, but it's too pricey and I feel it's too complicated for me as a beginner.

---

The 5DII is a little expensive, yes, but I don't think it is any more complicated than the 7D.

And I think you're confusing the 6D with the 60D. If your decision is between the two and you can afford the difference, I would opt for the 7D, but maybe wait to see what these current rumours about a new one are about.

(I'd also advise the bloke in the shop to consider a camera rather than a cannon ;))

If I were you I'd buy the 17-55mm f/2.8 for the time being and then get the 100mm macro when you want to expand (or the 70-200mm if you really fancy pricey).

Thank you for your reply ham;

What's everyone's opinion on which lens is better for the topic I started with? The thread highly recommended Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM or the Tamron SP 24-70mm F/2.8 Di VC USD. The lens with either be on the 7D or the 60D and it will be used for indoors shots of my newborn, and family portraits.

Thank you all once again. This thread has been a lot of fun and very informative.

Bruce

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Magijr

What's everyone's opinion on which lens is better for the topic I started with? The thread highly recommended Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM or the Tamron SP 24-70mm F/2.8 Di VC USD. The lens with either be on the 7D or the 60D and it will be used for indoors shots of my newborn, and family portraits.

---

On a crop body(1.6x) like the 60D or the 7D the
Canon 17-55mm focal length is effectively 27-88mm and
Tamron 24-70mm is effectively 38-112mm

so there is visible difference between the focal length. also I read somewhere that the only thing the canon 17-55mm is missing is the Red Ring so the image quality is as good as a L series lens. in the review at http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx its been written that it is sharper than the canon 24-70 L lens across the complete range.

the price difference between the two is not a lot (around 100$) and both have the same F value so i reckon in the end it will come down to what focal length you prefer.

Personal Opinion: I have a 60D and I love the flip out screen which helps in taking videos and pictures where there is a huge crowd in front of you. i understand that's not a priority for you but i think its a nice feature to have.