Lens choices for child candids and small events

Terrence

I'd like to know what your favorite choices of glass are for child candids/portraits and small events. I'm researching and making plans to dip my toe in to for-pay shooting and I sense I need some different lens selections for this market. I want to shoot mostly natural light, going to flash for the events or only when really necessary.

I have a Canon 50 f/1.4 and Canon 24-105 f/4. I love the 50 and I plan to sell the 24-105 and pick up a Canon 24-70 f/2.8, as I find I rarely shoot on the long end of that lens.

The 24-70 sounds like a good choice for small events, where I am likely to use some off camera strobe to keep SS high. I considered the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS, but it just explodes my budget and gets me a lens that won't be useful for 80% of what I want to do.

The other lenses I'm considering are primes, as that's what I like to shoot more and I love the look a wide open sharp prime gives. Here's my short list.

For a "normal" lens (on a 40D): Sigma 30 f/1.4 versus Canon 35 f/2.

For a "portrait" lens: Canon 85 f/1.8 versus Canon 100 f/2.8 or both

I've set a reasonable budget to get some extra glass, and I am willing to spend to get what I really need. If there's another "must have", even if it's pricey, please suggest it.

Any advice from the experienced people shooters here is greatly appreciated.

ziggy53

On my Canon crop 1.6x cameras I very much like the Canon EF-S 17-55mm, f/2.8 IS USM for most event shooting.

Available light and fast-moving children is not generally a recipe for success. A better approach is using indirect and diffused flash, so it "looks" like it might be natural lighting. You need high shutter speeds for children in many unposed situations and you just can't get the appropriate shutter/aperture combination indoors without flash.

Outdoors, available light is an option but you generally also need flash for fill. Working in very bright and contrasty sunlight you might also need to moderate the ambient light so using a flash with HSS/FP mode might be required.

ChatKat

24-105 vs 24-70
I have both lenses and the 24-105 is my first choice of lenses between the two. The focus is sharper, I have more keepers with that lens and the IS gives you the equivilent of the extra stop that you get at 2.8 on the 24-70.

The 50 is also a good lens for events but on full frame I'd add a 35 or 24 for a prime or the 16-35 or 17-40 for a zoom

Terrence

Ziggy: You're right. I should have said I prefer shooting available light. I'll add strobe when needed. I have no illusion about shooting moving children indoors without some strobe help. My 3 year old proves that every day. I'm hoping to get more outdoor environmental candid and portrait work. No matter what, I'll need to have some strobe solutions up my sleeve.

ChatKat: Interesting point on the 24-70 versus 24-105. I thought the 24-70 was considered the better of the two lenses, with respect to focus. I'll have to look into that more.

Good point from both of you on the 17-40 or 17-55 range. The 17 end does sound very hand for small events, where quarters may be a little cramped.

Keeping the 24-105 sounds like a better idea now. Suplement that with the 17-55 and a Sigma 30 f/1.4 and I've got a nice choice of prime versus zoom for different situations.

mercphoto

Terrence wrote:

ChatKat: Interesting point on the 24-70 versus 24-105. I thought the 24-70 was considered the better of the two lenses, with respect to focus. I'll have to look into that more.

I thought the same thing. I do have the 24-70/2.8 and it is a great lens. For available light that extra stop of light is worth a bunch. Also, keep in mind that a f/2.8 lets in more light (twice as much) as an f/4, meaning its easier on the camera to focus properly and get an exposure reading. Lastly, IS will not help you one bit with moving subjects (i.e. kids)!

ChatKat

Mis focus
The 24-70 is well known to have misfocus issues - front focus, While I think I have a good copy (actually two of them) I never have those issues with the 24-105

Terrence

ChatKat wrote:

The 24-70 is well known to have misfocus issues - front focus, While I think I have a good copy (actually two of them) I never have those issues with the 24-105

I see. I've had my 24-105 in for correction of backfocusing and I'm still suspect of it. I'll pay close attention to the QC issues.

WingsOfLovePhoto

For child candids outside I use the 70-200 2.8 so I can just let them do their thing and then catch them from a distance. This is also best for events so you can remain a distance away. Inside I prefer the 24-70 2.8 to do my children portraits so that I can be up close to them and handing them props or tickling or whatever to catch the expression. It is easier to interact and works for smaller spaces. If you can... get 2!

Scott_Quier

I have both the 17-55 and the 25-105. I have to tell you that the 17-55 is the lens I go to first for events. It focus fast and correct (especially since I've applied a couple of points of AF Microadjustment ) and is simply wonderful. At 2.8, even before the advent of the 50D, this was/is a stellar performer.

However, I have to agree with Kathy RE: the 24-105 - for portrait work that is a beautiful performer. In the studio it's the first I'll reach for every time. And it sits right next to my 70-200 f/2.8L IS, which I ddn't even touch it for my last studio session.

I have also had opportunity to play with a copy of the 24-70 f/2.8 L - was not terribly impressed.

Were it my purchasing decision, based on what I know, I would be forced to go with the 17-55.

HTH

Trevlan

I'm not a cannon shooter, but if I were in the market for an all pourpose lens, I'd look for the 22-200mm F/2.8. That should cover you for whatever you need to shoot. One lense, decent range and pretty good wide angle. I'm sure cannon has a stealar 22-200mm lense. Anyone here own one?

Terrence

Scott_Quier wrote:

I have both the 17-55 and the 25-105. I have to tell you that the 17-55 is the lens I go to first for events. It focus fast and correct (especially since I've applied a couple of points of AF Microadjustment ) and is simply wonderful. At 2.8, even before the advent of the 50D, this was/is a stellar performer.

However, I have to agree with Kathy RE: the 24-105 - for portrait work that is a beautiful performer. In the studio it's the first I'll reach for every time. And it sits right next to my 70-200 f/2.8L IS, which I ddn't even touch it for my last studio session.

I have also had opportunity to play with a copy of the 24-70 f/2.8 L - was not terribly impressed.

Were it my purchasing decision, based on what I know, I would be forced to go with the 17-55.

HTH

Thanks Scott. It's very helpful hearing what people are really using and what works for them. The 70-200 f/2.8 is really tempting, but at $1,699 new, it just shreds my budget. Maybe if I get a paying gig or 10 this year I can add that to the stable.

The 17-55 is looking more and more attractive and I'm getting an itch to go to the 50D for the AF adjustment so I can deal with minor issues myself rather than shipping to Canon service.

Thanks for all the input so far folks.

Terrence

Trevlan wrote:

I'm not a cannon shooter, but if I were in the market for an all pourpose lens, I'd look for the 22-200mm F/2.8. That should cover you for whatever you need to shoot. One lense, decent range and pretty good wide angle. I'm sure cannon has a stealar 22-200mm lense. Anyone here own one?

Why not stretch for a 10-500mm f/1? Dream big.

TaDa

I cannot advise strongly enough how great of a lens the 17-55 f/2.8 IS is. I used it for what you plan on using it for (kids) and it never failed to produce. It's tack sharp wide open throughout its range. The IS is very useful at times for taking sleeping kids portraits or the like, and I found the range to be very useful. For me, the 24-70 was nowhere near wide enough for me on a crop. I originally got the brick because I was shooting on the long end a bunch. I then went and shot my son's second birthday party, and almost threw it to the ground because of all the wide shots that I was missing from lack of room to back up. I traded it for the 17-55 the next day. Now I'm back to the 24-70, but on a 5D.

Terrence

Thank you everyone for the advice. The 17-55 f/2.8 is now #1 on my list for small event and indoor shoots. The 24-70 is off the list until or if I go FF.

I'm probably getting the Sigma 30 f/1.4 too, as I've seen some really nice samples from it and I really like shooting primes when I have the room for sneaker zooming.

The Canon 85 f/1.8 and/or 100 f/2.8 are still debatable, since I'll have the 24-105 f/4 and the IS can get me f/2.8-like performance, just not the bokeh. I've seen really nice pictures from those lenses, which is what's tugging at me.

Scott_Quier

Terrence wrote:

The Canon 85 f/1.8 and/or 100 f/2.8 are still debatable, since I'll have the 24-105 f/4 and the IS can get me f/2.8-like performance, just not the bokeh. I've seen really nice pictures from those lenses, which is what's tugging at me.

Understand that the IS will not stop action where you have a better chance of doing so with a faster aperture - and that's where primes really come to the fore.

mercphoto

Scott_Quier wrote:

Understand that the IS will not stop action where you have a better chance of doing so with a faster aperture - and that's where primes really come to the fore.

Precisely! The f/4 will not get you the shutter speed, and that is what you need to stop the action of little moving kids. The IS is useless for this need.

Schnauzer

I have the 17-55 2.8 IS and its on my 40D 99% of the time. Its my favorite lense. Its sharp and locks focus just about instantly. I love my 70-200 2.8 IS, but on the 40D the 17-55 is so much handier. I am very sorry that I'll have to sell it after my 5DMII arrives Friday. I almost didn't go for the 5DMII because I wouldn't be able to use this lense on it.

Terrence

I picked the 17-55 up last night. I just happened to be walking by Adorama, decided to look at it up close, and scored a demo copy (never been used, sitting under glass) for $769. It was fate telling me to buy the lens...and to not tell the wife right away.

It's on my 40D and will get a real workout the next few days.

seaain.gray

Terrence wrote:

I'd like to know what your favorite choices of glass are for child candids/portraits and small events.

I am being paid to do children's candid portraits and events.

I am shooting with two lenses primarily. A 28-75mm or similar is of great use at events. Esp. where you want to capture a group. It also lets you zoom in a reasonable way when required.

My ace in the hole however has been a 50ish through 300ish, and frankly I use every millimeter of it. When shooting candid portraits or kids, I like to hang back at the 210mm to 270mm range and get relatively tight shots. The real boon here is that when you are out shooting in the park, you do not want to be in their face with a camera. Remember that it is candid. The less they actually interact with you and are left to interact in the chosen environment, the better the results are... ** I ** find. Encourage interaction by all means, but also encourage uninhibited play. The kid will be happier, and you will get some brilliant shots.

I do tend to use a monopod with the longer lens. I used to hand hold and still often do, but where I can I use a monopod and steady up just a little. The difference is primarily in the number of useable shots I get.

At birthday parties it is often very hard to get into the front of the crowd or get a front row seat. The 55-300 gives me the reach. You may find that you need to balance between letting the parents and kids up front and getting the shot. A longer lens is a real equalizer.

Consider this. Try an inexpensive one somewhere where it does not so much count and get a feel for the style you can adopt with a greater reach. You may really like it.

Kind regards,

Seaain