Debating on the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8

[Photog82]

My wife is pregnant and I want to be able to capture really nice, sharp photos while inside of the baby once it arrives.

Here's what I currently have:

• Canon 7D
• Canon Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM (I want to upgrade to Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM)
• Canon 24-105L f/4
• Canon 50 1.8 II
• Canon EF-S 10-22

The 50 1.8 is nice, but I don't like being stuck at 50 or in my case ~70 while inside. I am interested in the lens in the title due to the flexibility in range and that it's at f/2.8 for inside use and low DoF.

Does anyone use this lens for what I want to use it for? If so, can you post some examples? I'm hoping to get the lens for less than $1000 if possible.

Thanks and Happy Thanksgiving!

[Steph]

That's exactly my standard setup: 7D + 17-55 f/2.8. Most of my pictures are of the kids so I think I qualify to the "for what I want to use it for". What I can tell you is that I wouldn't want anything else for that range: It's sharp, it's IS* and f/2.8 allows you to have pretty nice background separation at 55mm at least. Let me try to find out a couple of pictures where the kids were babies and that are worth showing.

*IS doesn't prevent the kids from moving but I still think it helps when they happen to be steady.

[Photog82]

Are you saying that at the wider end of the lens there isn't much background separation at 2.8? Thanks, looking forward to the photos.

[neuroanatomist]

The 17-55/2.8 is a great lens for the use that you describe.

Note that sometimes even f/2.8 isn't enough - I'd consider a 430EX II as well.

[Steph]

Thanks, looking forward to the photos.

There you are... they were between 6 and 10 month old

A close up @ 55mm, f/2.8, 1/80, ISO 2000 -> not bad for the 7D (IMHO), subject distance 37 cm. No flash (it's the bulb in the eyes)


@ 55mm, f/3.2 (? probably P rather than Av), 1/60, ISO 200, subject distance 111 cm with flash bounced on the ceiling


With uncle J @ 42mm, f/2.8, 1/500, ISO 100, subject distance 151 cm


This one, the light is not terrific but that give you an idea of the blur as the window behind is at less than 5 meters from the subject @ 55mm, f/2.8, 1/500, ISO 100, subject distance 135 cm

[Steph]

Note that sometimes even f/2.8 isn't enough - I'd consider a 430EX II as well.

Now that you mention it, that's also what I have and yes sometimes (often when indoor) f/2.8 & 1/60 is not enough => the 430 EX.

[Steph]

Are you saying that at the wider end of the lens there isn't much background separation at 2.8?

With your subject at 150 cm and f/2.8
@ 55mm, the DOF behind the subject is +/- 4 cm
@ 17mm, it's +/- 57 cm so, yes, there is less separation.

Play a bit with DOFMaster, you'll see.

[Black_Dog]

The 17-55mm is the best normal zoom lens available for Canon crop sensor bodies. You won't regret it for what you are shooting.

[Scott Stephen]

I love my 17-55, and I have had 3 babies in what seems like very little time. The AF is fast, and the images are super-sharp.

The 50mm is great when they are little, because at 50mm that is a whole-body shot, and the AF doesn't matter because they aren't going anywhere. But once they are up and around, you need to be able to adapt to what they are doing, because they won't pose for you, or even display the slightest sign of cooperation sometimes. That is when the 17-55 range is so useful. And you can definitely achieve that blurred background/separated subject look at f/2.8, particularly from about 35mm to 55mm. Of course, it helps to be as close to the subject as possible, while also keeping the background as far behind the subject as possible. If you do that, you can even get that separation-look at f/4, really.

[Scott Stephen]

OH! And one more thing! There might be a point immediately after the birth where they take the baby into a room with a big window and clean her up and put her on a scale facing you. I was so nervous I didn't even notice it was a scale. (Emergency C-section and I was freaked out)

If there is a weight reading, don't mess up and zoom in too far to read the weight in the picture! I wish I had about 2 inches more on the bottom of that picture to this day!