Best Lens for Baby Pictures.

[Magijr]

Regarding the body not being water proof, thats a great point. For ow, its seems like I need to decide between the 17-55 and the 35L, and in the future work my way into and save up for the 70-200.

Thank you again.

[Scott Stephen]

I guess you DO have a "kit" lens that came with it, right? Was it the 18-55? If you already have that kit lens you might consider getting the 35mm prime for dark work and all, though it would be wide for portraits.
If you DON'T already have a kit lens, then I doubt you want you only lens to be a 35mm prime. Primes are awesome, and sharp, and great in low light, and all that, but you will want to zoom in and out sometimes.

[Magijr]

I do have a kit lens, its the 18-55. I'm a layman, and what does too wide for portraits mean? I have a class next Monday to hep me understand, but right now, i'm pretty ignorant.

[HDNitehawk]

I do have a kit lens, its the 18-55. I'm a layman, and what does too wide for portraits mean? I have a class next Monday to hep me understand, but right now, i'm pretty ignorant.

The wider the lens more background you are going to have in the picture and less of your subject. Field of View (FOV), where you might be doing full body shots of two or three people at 24mm or 35mm, you might be doing cowboy portraits at 55mm and head shots when you use a 70-200mm. Of course it all depends on how far you are from the subject. Personally I shoot most of my indoor shots at home with the 35mm so I think it is just fine, and on a crop body for me it might actually frame a little tight.

However, A 35mm lens on your camera is going to give you a very generic field of view since it will be equivalent to 56mm on a full frame camera. At 56mm it is close to the same Field of View the human eye has. Personally I wouldn't go for the 35mm F/1.4 L on a crop body like yours, what makes the 35mm great is what it can do on a Full Frame body. I would much prefer the 24mm F1.4L over the 35mm for a crop body, it would give me a similar FOV as I get with my 35mm.

In your situation I would get the 17-55 first then second the 70-200mm. After that start adding primes as you think you need them. From a financial standpoint I wouldn't buy any primes till you know that you actually need them, not because any one has told you that will need them. The IQ of primes is better than the zooms, usually. They are specialty tools that are very expensive. You can establish the need with experience from your zoom lenses.

[Magijr]

Its amazing, the more I learn, the more I want to know. Photography is very subjective, very interesting and very exciting.

I am now intrigued about the FF bodies, I have 30 days to return the rebel... if you were me, would you start with a FF, or a crop?

[HDNitehawk]

Its amazing, the more I learn, the more I want to know. Photography is very subjective, very interesting and very exciting.

I am now intrigued about the FF bodies, I have 30 days to return the rebel... if you were me, would you start with a FF, or a crop?

That really depends on how serious you are. If you are just documenting your kids growing up the crop body will do a good job for much less money.
When my kids were young, I wouldn't even think about spending $3,499 for a new 5D III and in a month or two when the new 24-70mm L II is released spend another $2,200. Kids cost to much, but at this point in my life I would go the Full Frame route because I can afford it and I enjoy photography as a hobby. If money isn't an object in the discussion of course go with Full Frame. You will get better IQ and better a Auto Focus system.

[Richard Lane]

Remember they're talking about weather-sealed not water-proof.

I think the 17-55 is a great general purpose walk around lens for a crop body, but I think the the f/2.8 aperture will be a little too slow for indoor use without a flash, so what will end up happening is that you will have to shoot at higher ISO's so your shots will have a lot of noise in them. If you ever upgrade to a full frame camera then the EF-S 17-55mm will not be compatible. The 24-70mm f/2.8L is a great lens and is FF compatible but the 24mm may not be wide enough if you decide you would like to get into landscape shots. The 24-70mm is also pretty large and heavy.

I think the the 35L f/1.4 would be the perfect focal length on a crop body for baby and family shots whether you're indoors or outdoors and the f/1.4 will really cut down on the image noise indoors.

When you're ready to expand your lens collection, then I really like the 85mm f/1.8, for baby portraits indoors or outdoors, but it's a little long for indoor family group shots. The 35L would be better for that.

The next lens upgrade for outdoor use would be one of the 70-200mm lenses.

The 85mm f/1.2L is great, heavy and expensive but very slow focusing, so I think you will miss some quick spontaneous shots with it. The 85mm is also long for indoor family group shots.

Rich

[Magijr]

Thank you for your response Richard.

Quick questions; if you were on a desert island, and you were only able to take one lens with you, what lens would you take?

[ahab1372]

Quick questions; if you were on a desert island, and you were only able to take one lens with you, what lens would you take?

Not fair! ;-)
I would take the 17-55 zoom for the versatility (or my 15-85 zoom if it is a sunny island and I'm outside a lot). I would always recommend one high quality zoom first before adding primes like the Sigma 30, or the 35L or one of the 85mm lenses. The zooms cover a lot, from a group shot with grandparents and in-laws around the baby, to portraits of the baby's face. That's why they usually stay on the camera a lot, and you can take a lot of different pictures without swapping lenses in between, so it better be good quality, and for your purpose, it better have a wide aperture/low light capabilities.
.
Then I'd add a prime later, either a 30 or 35, or a 85 if you prefer tighter head/shoulder portraits. But thekingb and Richard also have a point, use the existing kit lens for general purpose and add a 30 or 35 prime with even greater low light capabilities than the 17-55. Looking at my neighbor's pics of his baby, he get's a lot of good pictures out of the 17-55 with 2.8 aperture, so I would still recommend it as the first purchase.

As you can tell by the length of this thread and the other threads you found, there is not only one right answer. All the recommended lenses are good, the questions are
1) where do you put your money first, and
2) out of which lens will you get the best value for the intended purpose?

My money is still on the 17-55, then a flash, then a faster prime or a tele.

Let us know how you decide, and please share some pictures.

Good luck!

Arnt

[Magijr]

Thank you again, your responses as well as the other forum members' responses have certainly given me a lot to chew on. I really appreciate your comments, and I will definitely share my decision and share my pictures with the group; it seems the photography world is a tight nit community I am very happy to have joined.