Best Lens for Baby Pictures.

[Magijr]

Thank you for your input.

[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!!)

[Magijr]

Hi Scott, congratulations on your child and thank you for all the information. Does the 17-55 f/2.8 work well out side? In your opinion, do you think its worth buying the 24-70 mm 7/2.8 L?

Thank you again,
Bruce

[Jon Ruyle]

I used to use the 70-200 f/4 (non IS) and a rebel to take pictures of my son when he was a baby and daughter when she was small. I later upgraded to the 70-200 f/2.8 IS, and later the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II (by then my kids were bigger )

The 70-200 f/4 was fine for outdoors, but required a little too much light to use indoors. I used the 70-200 f/2.8 IS both indoors and outdoors, and never felt like it was too long, even indoors on the rebel. I guess I prefer a little more working distance than Scott.

Opinions vary, and as I said, I know I'm in the minority here.

[Scott Stephen]

Hi Scott, congratulations on your child and thank you for all the information. Does the 17-55 f/2.8 work well out side? In your opinion, do you think its worth buying the 24-70 mm 7/2.8 L?

Thank you again,
Bruce

Thanks!

The problem with the 24-70 on a crop-frame would also be the 1.6x length multiplier, only applied in reverse. The 24mm would not be wide enough for a lot of shots you'd like to get. The 24mm would be like 38 mm, which is useful medium length, but often not wide enough for photographing things like a group of people, or a landscape/vacation shot. You can always buy another lens for wide-angle, but frankly the 17 is as wide as I ever need, and also I'd hate to have to change lenses every time I wanted to get wider than 24(38); it would drive me nuts. Also, that 24-70 lens is due for a "refresh" and a "mark II" is on the way, and some people you read are not crazy about the IQ of this mark I version.

That 24-70 would be useful if you buy a full-frame camera someday, whereas your 17-55 would not fit a full-frame. But you just got your t4i and are just learning how to use it, so I don't imagine that is going to happen anytime soon. If I ever buy a full-frame I will keep a crop body too, so my 17-55 will always be useful to me. If not, you can easily sell them for most of what you paid for them (or for all of what you paid, if you buy used).

As for outdoor, yes, I think the 17-55 is fantastic. Great IQ, and since it gets dark outside too, the constant f/2.8 max aperature is handy everywhere. It is not "weatherproofed" like the "L" glass, but I never shoot in the rain, and I don't hike or climb rocks in a sandstorm like some folks do (or imagine that they might possibly do someday).

[Magijr]

[QUOTE=Jon Ruyle;74248]I used to use the 70-200 f/4 (non IS) and a rebel to take pictures of my son when he was a baby and daughter when she was small. I later upgraded to the 70-200 f/2.8 IS, and later the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II (by then my kids were bigger )

The 70-200 f/4 was fine for outdoors, but required a little too much light to use indoors. I used the 70-200 f/2.8 IS both indoors and outdoors, and never felt like it was too long, even indoors on the rebel. I guess I prefer a little more working distance than Scott.

It seems that you are very familiar with the zoom lens, the 70-200 in particular. I think I may rent one and try it out, they are certainly very expensive, but everything I read about the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is very positive. In fact, the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is the-digital-picture.com creator's favorite lens, and it's ranked # 1 on Amazon... makes a good case. My 2 concerns with the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is the shear size when paired up with the rebel 4ti, not sure if the body will hold up that well and can I use it in the nursery, or other smaller rooms?

[Magijr]

mmmm, very interesting. Thank you again for your information, this is all new to me; and you are correct, I am not going to change camera bodies any time soon.
Regarding the waterproof lens; I do enjoy hiking and other outdoor activity, could you recommend an L lens that is similar to the 17-55 f/2.8?

[Scott Stephen]

[QUOTE=Magijr;74250]

I used to use the 70-200 f/4 (non IS) and a rebel to take pictures of my son when he was a baby and daughter when she was small. I later upgraded to the 70-200 f/2.8 IS, and later the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II (by then my kids were bigger )

The 70-200 f/4 was fine for outdoors, but required a little too much light to use indoors. I used the 70-200 f/2.8 IS both indoors and outdoors, and never felt like it was too long, even indoors on the rebel. I guess I prefer a little more working distance than Scott.

It seems that you are very familiar with the zoom lens, the 70-200 in particular. I think I may rent one and try it out, they are certainly very expensive, but everything I read about the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is very positive. In fact, the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is the-digital-picture.com creator's favorite lens, and it's ranked # 1 on Amazon... makes a good case. My 2 concerns with the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is the shear size when paired up with the rebel 4ti, not sure if the body will hold up that well and can I use it in the nursery, or other smaller rooms?

Please don't get me wrong. I highly reccomend the 70-200 2.8 II, and I highly reccomend you buy one. I love mine. As soon as the baby is wallking around the lens will be priceless.
I just don't see any way you could ever make 70-200 your only lens. You can use it indoors sometimes, yes, but it is just too long for much of what you would want to shoot. You would have to have a wider "walking around lens" like the 17-55 or an 18-55 or something like that.

[Jon Ruyle]

My 2 concerns with the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is the shear size when paired up with the rebel 4ti, not sure if the body will hold up that well and can I use it in the nursery, or other smaller rooms?

It is a big lens compared to the rebel. I didn't mind at the time, but today I might try it with a battery grip.

As for small rooms, there might be a problem with working distance- that's something to consider. Most of my pictures were taken in largeish rooms.

[Scott Stephen]

"...Regarding the waterproof lens; I do enjoy hiking and other outdoor activity, could you recommend an L lens that is similar to the 17-55 f/2.8?"


Sorry, not at f/2.8 in a single "L" lens, anyway.