Best Lens for Baby Pictures.

[Scott Stephen]

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.

[ham]

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).

[Magijr]

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

[DSLR_Newbie]

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.

[ham]

I wouldn't take the flip-screen over the 7D's focusing to be honest. It's also got better build quality, burst rate and sealing.

But it's horses for courses, I have a 60D because I couldn't afford (or wait to afford) the 7D.

[DSLR_Newbie]

But it's horses for courses, I have a 60D because I couldn't afford (or wait to afford) the 7D.

One of many reason I have a 60D as well

[Magijr]

Do you think a lens like the Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM is a good lens for a first lens, walk around and indoor photography on a crop body like e 60d, or is the 17-55 still a better option?

[Joel Eade]

Do you think a lens like the Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM is a good lens for a first lens, walk around and indoor photography on a crop body like e 60d, or is the 17-55 still a better option?

It will be better weather resistant, probably better IQ in terms of corner to corner sharpness and chromatic aberration but it will be a little less versatile, alot more expensive and a lot heavier.

[neuroanatomist]

Do you think a lens like the Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM is a good lens for a first lens, walk around and indoor photography on a crop body like e 60d, or is the 17-55 still a better option?

I think the 17-55mm is a better option. The 17-55mm is actually a little sharper than the 16-35L II when comparing both on the same APS-C camera. The 17-55mm has a more useful focal range, and has image stabilization. The 16-35L II is significantly more expensive. It's true that the 16-35 II is weather sealed, but that is only useful is you're using it on a weather sealed body (the T4i is not, the 60D has some sealing, but really you'd want a 7D for decent sealing); also, a filter is needed to complete the sealing and 82mm filters aren't cheap.

If you were asking about an ultrawide zoom for a FF camera, the 16-35L II would be the recommendation. For a general purpose lens on APS-C, the 17-55mm is the better choice of the two.

[Magijr]

I think the 17-55mm is a better option. The 17-55mm is actually a little sharper than the 16-35L II when comparing both on the same APS-C camera. The 17-55mm has a more useful focal range, and has image stabilization. The 16-35L II is significantly more expensive. It's true that the 16-35 II is weather sealed, but that is only useful is you're using it on a weather sealed body (the T4i is not, the 60D has some sealing, but really you'd want a 7D for decent sealing); also, a filter is needed to complete the sealing and 82mm filters aren't cheap.

If you were asking about an ultrawide zoom for a FF camera, the 16-35L II would be the recommendation. For a general purpose lens on APS-C, the 17-55mm is the better choice of the two.

What is your opinion the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM vs the 17-55mm worn on a 60d? Would you still go with the 17-55mm for an all purpose lens?