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.Originally Posted by Magijr
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!!)
Reply With Quote