Best Lens for Baby Pictures.

[Magijr]

I am expecting my first child 10/20/12, and I recently purchased my first dslr, an EOS Rebel t4i. The only lens I currently own is the lens that came with the camera, the 15-55mm. I am looking for help with what lens to choose next. Most of the pictures I am looking to take for the next 6-12 months are still portraits of the baby and the family, however I would also like a lens that can grow with the child.

I have done some research and I think that the reviews on The-Digital-Picture.com site are great, the only problem I have is that there are so many choices ranging from a couple hundred dollars to a couple thousand.

What lens do you all recommend? Do I need to purchase a couple lens? Is it worth my investment to buy a premium L series lens?

Sorry for all the questions

Thank you for your help,
Bruce

[Steph]

Welcome Magijr

When I was in your case a few years ago, I bought the 17-55 f/2.8. You'll shoot mostly indoors at the beginning and you'll appreciate the 2 stops difference as that will allow you to stay at 1/60 without increasing the ISO too much. Also 55mm is not much (88 mm in 35mm) but I found it sufficient.

Don't forget to post pictures of your little wonder when the time comes!

[Magijr]

Thank you for the suggestions, I will certainly take that lens into consideration and post a PIC as soon as he's here

[Joel Eade]

Alot depends on your budget. The very best image quality will likely come from an L series prime lens but, as you pointed out, there is a great variety of choices. I just recently purchased the 35mm f/1.4L in anticipation of our first grandchild's birth. It is a fabulous lens that works extremely well in low light without a flash. It is very sharp out to the edges. Overall a great lens but pricey. I have also seen great results from the 24-70mm f/2.8L which you could also use down the road for indoor sports or stage performances. Many many options...what is your budget?

[Magijr]

Thank you for the reply. I really do not have a budget (my wife cant see this can she? LOL) , I would rather buy a lens that I will have for many years and take the best quality pictures. I am going to take a course in photography in the Fall to lean about the camera and the lens that I choose and get the most out of both.

Do you think the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Telephoto Zoom Lens is a crazy purchase, or a good investment?

Thank you again, Bruce

[neuroanatomist]

I really do not have a budget (my wife cant see this can she? LOL) , I would rather buy a lens that I will have for many years and take the best quality pictures.

Great philosophy. I can tell you from personal experience that 'taking better pictures of your child' is a justification that usually has a lot of traction with a wife, at least with mine.

I am going to take a course in photography in the Fall to lean about the camera and the lens that I choose and get the most out of both.

That's a great idea. Some introductory books can be great as well - Bryan Peterson's Understanding Exposure and some of Michael Freeman's books are great places to start.

Do you think the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Telephoto Zoom Lens is a crazy purchase, or a good investment?

Definitely a good investment, but perhaps not something you need right away. My experience with the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II was that on an APS-C camera, the focal length was rather 'awkward' - it was too long to use conveniently indoors except right near the wide end. As a result, I really didn't use it that much on my 7D. After getting a 5DII, though, it became my second most-used lens - on FF, it's a great focal range indoors and out, living room to backyard to beach.

[Magijr]

Great philosophy. I can tell you from personal experience that 'taking better pictures of your child' is a justification that usually has a lot of traction with a wife, at least with mine.

"I am thinking the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS seems to be the smart choice, not cheap though, but a good buy"

That's a great idea. Some introductory books can be great as well - Bryan Peterson's Understanding Exposure and some of Michael Freeman's books are great places to start.

"I agree, I have purchased a few books from Barnes and Noble and Understanding Exposure is on its way."



Definitely a good investment, but perhaps not something you need right away. My experience with the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II was that on an APS-C camera, the focal length was rather 'awkward' - it was too long to use conveniently indoors except right near the wide end. As a result, I really didn't use it that much on my 7D. After getting a 5DII, though, it became my second most-used lens - on FF, it's a great focal range indoors and out, living room to backyard to beach.

"Thank you again for your advice and input"

[Joel Eade]

? Is it worth my investment to buy a premium L series lens?

Bruce

In my opinion yes. The image quality is top notch and, so far, they hold their value over time due to the price increases that Canon has instituted. I just recently sold a 4 year old 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM for exactly what I paid for it.

[Magijr]

You may have just answered my question. Is the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Telephoto Zoom Lens also good for photographing a baby?

[Scott Stephen]

You may have just answered my question. Is the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Telephoto Zoom Lens also good for photographing a baby?

This is pretty funny. I have a baby, a T3i, a 70-200 f.2,8L IS II USM, and a 17-55 f/2.8 so I guess I can offer a fairly relevant perspective.

On a crop body like T3i or T4i, the 70-200 is not good for babies; it is just way too long for just about any situation your typical baby gets into. The actual length of every lens is multiplied by 1.6x on a crop-body, so your widest (shortest) possible shot is really 112mm, not 70, and that is too long for most indoor shots. And forget about the long end, which is 200 x 1.6 = 320mm. I have a 7-month old baby, and we never let her get far enough away for that!

On the other hand the baby will get bigger fast, and then the 70-200 is a fantastic lens for outside kids on a crop-frame.

As for the 17-55, I love mine. I use it a lot, and it is a very useful range, and it has fantastic image quality. The biggest thing is it works great in low light, and the wide aperature also lets you get those great blurry-background shots. I added in a cheap 50mm f/1.8 for $110 bucks. I doubt I'll need another lens for a very long time.

Buy the best lens the first time, as long as budget is not tight.

(Oh, and CONGRATULATIONS on the baby! We found that babies are like lenses; once you have one you inevitably end up wanting more!!)