Im not sure what Rich will say; But I would take my 500mm so I could start camp fires and watch for ships going by. Do we have electricity to charge the camera batteries and run our computer as well?Originally Posted by Magijr
If I knew help was coming soon I would want this filled with a margarita; http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ug-Review.aspx
Now we are talking; I own a staffing company that specializes in providing clients with bartenders and an off premise bar service; you guys bring the lenses; I'll bring the tequila!!
Sure, my pleasure!
I guess it depends if I had a crop body or FF. But I would say the 35mm works great on both! Remember that 50mm is pretty close to what we see with our eyes. So, 35mm on 1.6X crop body is 56mm.
You will have the normal view with the crop body and the not too-wide environmental view on FF.
mmmm, great choices and an even better answer to the FF vs. crop body. Do you have a FF camera? In your opinion, do you think the full frame is better to have than the crop body?
I read few articles and it seems that the full frame is the clear favorite, its just really expensive.
+1 .... also you can always go "old school" and zoom with your feet.
This an image of my wife and our newborn grand daughter taken with the canon 35mm f/1.4L on a 1DMKIV which is a 1.3 crop sensor. This is nearly a full frame image, it was barely cropped.
I want to change my vote to campfires and Margaritas too!
You may not have had time to get familiar with your camera, and the "feel" of different lengths on your zoom lens, as you are still within the 30-day return window. Take your camera and "zoom in" all the way with your kit lens (to 55mm). Do this outside, pointed at a bird or squirrel-sized target 30 feet away in the yard. Now back it up to 34mm. It will feel VERY short. That is the amount of "free" telephoto you have with a crop body, and which you lose with a FF.
Now, look at the price of good f/2.8 telephoto Canon lenses. $7,000.00 or $13,000.00 is about the neighborhood. You would need that kind of lens JUST to regain the length lost by dumping the crop body for FF if you want to keep the wide bright 2.8 aperature. Telephotos aren't even cheap if you go with a smaller aperature. This may not seem alarming unless you have an above-average level of interest in squirrels or other distant small-ish things, but you do constantly find other situations where you will wish you could zoom in more, and certainly not less, I promise.
And this effect is even more noticable at 200mm than it is at 55mm. I bought a 1.4x tele-extender to screw onto my 1.6x crop body for use with my 70-200mm lens. And that is just about enough zoom to shoot a groundhog (which is the size of a large housecat) from a distance that feels comfortable to me (and to the groundhog). And the tele-extender robs you of a full stop of light, so your 2.8 lens becomes an f/4 lens.
If you do go FF, consider seriously keeping the crop body for longer shots. With the kind of money involved, a $600 or $800 extra body is small potatoes.
Last edited by Scott Stephen; 08-18-2012 at 04:09 PM.
Canon 6D, Canon EF 16-35 f/2.8 L III; Sigma 35mm f/1.4 "Art"; Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 L IS Macro; Canon 24-105 f/4 L ; Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS (unused nowadays), EF 85 f/1.8; Canon 1.4x TC Mk. 3; 3x Phottix Mitros+ flashes
I don't think anyone has mentioned one lens that is great, and that's the 15-85. It's sharper than the 17-55 and has a wider zoom range. I have both lenses and use the 15-85 much more often. I've used natural light to take pictures of babies and toddlers in my family, and I couldn't be more pleased with this lens.
It's not quite as fast as the 17-55, but an inexpensive on-camera flash will fix that. A 430EXII and the 15-85 will be less money than the 17-55 alone.
I would consider this option. I would agree with the others on the 70-200. Hold off on it for now.
In seven (7) pages of "answers" no one has addressed the OP's titular question: What lens would be best for a baby trying to take pictures? Just about nothing comes to mind, given the typically awful coordination and strength of the average baby. I know I wouldn't trust my own 7-month-old with a disposable camera, much less a good body and "L" lens. Weatherproofing is no match for drool, I can tell you. Geez. Let the kid grow up, THEN train him up for photography.
Canon 6D, Canon EF 16-35 f/2.8 L III; Sigma 35mm f/1.4 "Art"; Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 L IS Macro; Canon 24-105 f/4 L ; Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS (unused nowadays), EF 85 f/1.8; Canon 1.4x TC Mk. 3; 3x Phottix Mitros+ flashes
Thank you all for your responses, the information is appreciated. With each response I have enough new information to research for an hour.
If you have any more suggestions or points you would like to make on; 1) FF vs. Crop, or 2) Lens options for taking baby pictures -not babies taking pictures", then please send them my way.
I am going to a local photo shop (Milford Photo, Milford CT) on Monday to discuss if a FF is a better choice / investment than a crop camera for me now, or am I getting in over my head as some of you have suggested. And what lens best suites my needs - new father taking baby pictures.
Thank you again,
Bruce
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote