Page 3 of 15 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 143

Thread: Best Lens for Baby Pictures.

  1. #21
    Thank you all for your input, suggestions and advice.

    Does anyone have an opinion on the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM Lens?

    Is this aperture too low for indoor photography?

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    2,905
    Quote Originally Posted by Magijr View Post
    Thank you all for your input, suggestions and advice.

    Does anyone have an opinion on the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM Lens?

    Is this aperture too low for indoor photography?
    The 17-55mm F/2.8 will be better indoors. IMO I would say the 24-105 would be a better outdoor lens than indoor.

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by HDNitehawk View Post
    The 17-55mm F/2.8 will be better indoors. IMO I would say the 24-105 would be a better outdoor lens than indoor.
    Thank you for your feedback.

  4. #24
    Senior Member neuroanatomist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    3,716
    Quote Originally Posted by HDNitehawk View Post
    The 17-55mm F/2.8 will be better indoors. IMO I would say the 24-105 would be a better outdoor lens than indoor.
    +1. 24mm on APS-C is often not wide enough indoors, where you can't back up if you need a wider FoV. IMO, the 24-105L is another lens that delivers a more useful range on FF than APS-C. I did use it on my 7D when I wanted a weather-sealed combo for shooting in the rain, but otherwise the 17-55mm was the lens I'd grab first on APS-C.

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Riverside, CA
    Posts
    1,273
    I may be in the minority here, but I like a little more focal length when shooting babies. They're small after all, so I want a narrow FOV. On a camera like the rebel, I'd like to use a 70-200 zoom or an 85mm prime (budget will determine aperture- the faster the better IMO).

    The best part is, when the kids get bigger, these same focal lengths work great for portraits with a full frame camera. Isn't that a great excuse to upgrade your body 3-5 years down the line?

  6. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Santa Clara, CA, USA
    Posts
    694
    Neuro mentioned the EF 85mm f/1.8 which I also liked a lot when I tried it

  7. #27
    Senior Member Steph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Geneva, CH
    Posts
    143
    As a first lens for the first months of your little guy, I wouldn't advice the 70-200. I have the 70-200 f/2.8 L II IS and on my 7D, you can forget about it indoor. OK, perhaps the houses are smaller here in Europe. If you're afraid or see that the 55 end of the 17-55 is a bit too short, you can by a 85 f/1.8 which is not too expensive. Later, when he will be running in the garden, you can think about your first white lens. This is of course assuming you only want baby pictures.

  8. #28
    Senior Member Jayson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Nebraska, USA
    Posts
    1,698
    Just for the sake of conversation and decisions with money, you may consider the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 (non-VC). It is as sharp as the Canon 17-55mm, but without IS. It is also 1/2 the price. I still use this all the time indoors and I own the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8. I find it focuses quickly and accurately and is sharp. Also the Tamron focuses closer than the Canon but makes a little noise while focusing due to the non-silent drive motor. Probably sounds about like your kit lens. You could probably get that and the flash for the cost of the Canon and be very happy.

  9. #29
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1
    Ok...firstly i got into photography for exactly the same reasons as yourself. Four years on i have found myself going in circles with regard lenses. I started with a kit lens (like yourself) mine was the 17-85 4-5.6. Pretty good image quality. I have owned a number of primes 50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8. 24-105L, 70-200 IS, 17-50 OS Sigma (equivelent to 17-55 2.8 Canon in my opinion, I rented that too). I also have a macro lens (70mm Sigma). I have rented 35L, 50L, 85L, 135L, 24-70L, 70-200L IS.

    I think for baby photography you need primes in my opinion and heres why....The things you want to photograph are things like there feet, eye lashes, fingers, eyes, belly button and anything else that seems really cute too yourself. So the best lenses for this are prime lenses as they have greater control over zooms with regard depth of field. They really isolate the features you want to photograph and through out the rest with beautiful bokeh(blurry bits) Plus lets face it you will be very rarely going outdoors for the first month or so. So low light capabilities cannot be bettered by ANY zoom, L or not.

    My two cents with regard prime lenses:
    Good and cheap
    canon 50 1.8- $100 or so bucks great image quality for the price. Very good value for the beginner photo hog.
    Canon 35 F2- Agan super cheap with good IQ
    Medium price
    Canon 50mm 1.4- I have great pics of my new borns with this lens. A little soft wide open
    Sigma 50mm 1.4- I hear a little better than canons-I have only tried it at a store.
    Sigma 30mm 1.4 would be my choice for you, it is well priced good focal range for crop and very good IQ.
    Around $1000 or more
    I have just bought Sigmas 85mm 1.4. This is amazing for the money!! Wide open outdoors and with flash is phenomenal!! A bit tight indoors though.
    Any canon L primes to be fair are all pretty amazing. For the crop bodies your best bet would be the 35L. I found it to be a really useful focal length indoors. I wasn't having to back up all the time like i do with my 50 and 85's
    I sold my primes a while back to fund some studio lights. Then i found that i missed them dearly so sold the lights and bought primes again. Zoom lenses cannot replicate what primes can do (with in reason)
    As a final note- Macro lenses are another great way to isolate things in your images. My personal favourite for IQ and focal range is Sigmas 70mm 2.8. Again good price and great range for babies.
    Good luck with the birth
    Steve

  10. #30
    [QUOTE=Jon Ruyle;74234]I may be in the minority here, but I like a little more focal length when shooting babies. They're small after all, so I want a narrow FOV. On a camera like the rebel, I'd like to use a 70-200 zoom or an 85mm prime (budget will determine aperture- the faster the better IMO).

    Thats a great point, I spoke with a gentleman early today whom said just about the same thing. What would you recommend for a 70-200 zoom?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •