Need glass advice for new baby

DJ-S1

As you can tell from my avatar, our 3rd baby is rapidly approaching. I am thinking that my current setup may not be fast enough to catch low light no-flash shots of a newborn.

My current lineup:
Canon 30D - Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 - Canon 70-200 f/4L

I also have access to a 24-105 f/4L IS if I need it for a special occasion.

I don't have thousands to spend. I would be willing to sell the Tamron to upgrade it if it makes sense. I have seen the 50 f/1.8 get good reviews for a $70 item, but it may not be that useful otherwise? :dunno

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this- maybe I should just stick with what I have?

aktse

Actually, I don't see anything wrong with your gear. It really depends on the shots that you want to take.

I would get the fantastic plastic (50mm f/1.8). It's a great low light lens and is dirty cheap. For that price, you can't go wrong!

DJ-S1

aktse wrote:

Actually, I don't see anything wrong with your gear. It really depends on the shots that you want to take.

I would get the fantastic plastic (50mm f/1.8). It's a great low light lens and is dirty cheap. For that price, you can't go wrong!

Thanks for the comment. I like what I've got, the only thing is that some low-light stuff requires me to push the ISO to 800 or so to get decent shutter speeds. I must admit to being a bit afraid of the narrow DOF of a super fast lens though.

You are right though, for the money I really should pick up the 50-1.8.

DJ-S1

Hmmm, I see there's a 100mm f/2 on the flea market for $310. Prolly not enough of a difference from my 2.8? But then there's always the 85 f/1.8 for around $350... Lens lust sucks, no matter what the lens in question is.

Seymore

DJ... after reading your thread title I need to ask, can your baby really handle the 100mm f/2?

DJ-S1

Check my avatar - just look at those pipes! And that was 2 months ago; my wife says he's defintitely been working out every day since then. No doubt he can heft that lens.

claudermilk

IMHO your gear is fine. The 30D + 28-75/2.8 is more than up to the task. ISO 800 should be nothing to the 30D. I use a 20D + 24-70/2.8 and push it to ISO 3200 all the time; for family snaps capturing my 2-yr old niece I don't even have to go much more than 1600 usually--for me that's easy stuff compared to the stage stuff I usually shoot.


Now, if you're just looking for an excuse for more glass, well, the 50/1.8 is nice, the 50/1.4 is nicer. I'm looking at an 85/1.8 for myself eventually, it's supposed to be quite nice.

For dealing with the narrow DOF at super wide apertures, just lock to the center AF point so *you* are in control of what's in focus. Works for me all the way out to f1.2 when I occasionally get my grubby mitts on a loaner 85/1.2.

Seefutlung

DJ-S1 wrote:

Hmmm, I see there's a 100mm f/2 on the flea market for $310. Prolly not enough of a difference from my 2.8? But then there's always the 85 f/1.8 for around $350... Lens lust sucks, no matter what the lens in question is.

A couple of things, firstly, the F/2 will gather twice the light over your 2.8, which is significant. And secondly, nothing wrong with a liitle noise as long as the image has impact. The problem with noise is that it competes and distracts from the image. The greater the impact (visual impression) of the image, the more noise is acceptable because image impact overpowers noise distraction. Which is why newspapers can get away with 3dpi photos (actually most papers are at about 85dpi).

Secondly, I think the gear you have now is fine ... 1600 is the highest I'd go with the ISO. While yeah you can get an image at 3200, the IQ is pretty suckie.

52086478-L.jpg

1600, no noise reduction ... and cropped a bit.
20D, 1/80, F/4.5, Canon 24-70 at 50mm

Good Luck to You and Your Family,

Gary

DJ-S1

Gary and Chris, thanks for the great posts

Maybe I was looking for an excuse for new glass...but I should save the dough. I do some sports stuff and I could really use the 70-200 2.8 more than a low light wide lens. I guess I'll continue saving for that one.

My youngest is 5 now and I didn't have an SLR back then, so I am looking forward to having good camera gear for this last baby. Should be fun!

eoren1

Thought I would throw in 2 cents.
My vote is for the 50/1.8 mkI. Can be had on eBay and elsewhere for $100-125. This was the only lens on my 350D for the first 3 months of my son's life and produced great shots. For a bit more, the 50/1.4 would be a great buy as well. No need for the 85 or 100 range until later. In fact, the next lens you'll want/need is something in the 30mm range (either the Sigma 30/1.4 which I love or the Canon 35/2).
E

DJ-S1

Thanks E- are you referring to this, or did you say "Mk I" on purpose? If so, what makes the Mk I better than the Mk II?

ziggy53

DJ-S1 wrote:

Thanks E- are you referring to this, or did you say "Mk I" on purpose? If so, what makes the Mk I better than the Mk II?

The Canon EF 50mm, f1.8 MKI is the metal-mount equivalent of the lens you link to. The MKI version is no longer available new, and fairly sought after. They seem almost the same optics, but the MKI has a reputation for better QC. The MKII has a reputation for breaking apart when it's dropped, but otherwise a nice value for the money.

ziggy53

I'm not sure why there is so much concern about using only ambient light photography for newborns.

My kids are older, the youngest is 18, and I never had any problems photographing any of the kids with electronic flash and ISO 100 film and smaller apertures.

My father has photographic evidence of photographing me and my brother and sister when we were tiny, and he would have used big old flashbulbs. (4x5 Crown Graphic)

If you use ISO 800-3200, the tiny amount of flash needed to make an exposure at any reasonable aperture is not going to disturb the child.

A thunderstorm can be disturbing, but mostly when the parent is disturbed by the storm. As long as I retained my cool, the children recovered quickly. I guarantee that nothing photographic comes close to a thunderstorm, and yet infants "weather" them just fine.

I think there are many other things worth legitimate concern more than flash photography of infants.

ChrisJ

I bought the 50 f/1.4 after my son was born, and it worked great for a while. I now find that it's frequently too long, he moves too fast! If I had to do it again, I might go for the 35 f/2.0 to give me a couple of extra milleseconds beore he closes in.

Seefutlung

ziggy53 wrote:

I'm not sure why there is so much concern about using only ambient light photography for newborns ...

I imagine for the hospital .... and those quiet times.

Gary

DJ-S1

Seefutlung wrote:

I imagime for the hospital .... and those quiet times.

Gary

Yup, that's what I was thinking. Also I hate onboard flash (infant or not), and I keep forgetting that I just added a 430EX to my kit. What a dope! I can't believe they let me be a father (again).

I'm stating to think about that 50 1.8 though. For $75, what the heck right?

ziggy53

Seefutlung wrote:

I imagime for the hospital .... and those quiet times.

Gary

That's a good point, but the shutter noise and mirror slap can also be a consideration if there is too little ambient noise and you are close to the child.

I suppose a quiet digicam or digital rangefinder might eliminate that objection.

I didn't take so many pictures at the hospital that the flash or noise was a real problem for any of my kids. Once they got home, the pictures and video increased with the opportunities. (Aunt xxx and Uncle yyy come over to view the child and create a photo-op, etc.)

ziggy53

DJ-S1 wrote:

Yup, that's what I was thinking. Also I hate onboard flash (infant or not), and I keep forgetting that I just added a 430EX to my kit. What a dope! I can't believe they let me be a father (again).

I'm stating to think about that 50 1.8 though. For $75, what the heck right?

The Canon EF 50mm, f1.8 II is one of the last true bargains out there. Just don't drop it.

The EF 50mm, f1.4 is considerably better in many ways, and it's still reasonable in price.

Comparison here:

http://www.prime-junta.net/pont/Reviews/g_Fifty_versus_fifty/a_Fifties_duel_--_f1.4_vs_f1.8.html

jdryan3

ziggy53 wrote:

My father has photographic evidence of photographing me and my brother and sister when we were tiny, and he would have used big old flashbulbs. (4x5 Crown Graphic)

But look how you turned out. Case Closed!

claudermilk

DJ-S1 wrote:

I'm stating to think about that 50 1.8 though. For $75, what the heck right?

Exactly. At that price, everyone ought to have one.

The differences between the Mk I and Mk II are the metal vs plastic mount, the Mk II moves the MF ring to the very front of the lens barrel & it's narrower (read: less convenient to use), and the distance scale is gone. I've mainly read that the optics are the same. I had a good deal on a Mk I, so jumped on it & the lens has been great. The downside is that old AF motor, slow & noisy. Though it looks like from Petteri's review (linked earlier) the Mk I has a slight edge in sharpness. Great, now I'm rethinking swapping my Mk I for a 1.4.

dablan

Hi all - this is my first post on this forum.

I recently started shooting with a Canon 85mm 1.2L.
Great portrait lens - I'd imagine especially for babies.
I think this might be out of the price range, but if you can, get it.

LiquidAir

A 35mm and/or a 50mm prime will serve you very well for taking baby shots. Before they start moving there is no real reason to use a zoom. Even when taking pictures of my 2-year-old who rarely sits still, I prefer primes. Fast apertures both let me shoot in lower light and blur busy backgrounds. I have both the 35/1.4 and the 50/1.4 (as well as a few longer primes) and have many shots taken at f/2 and wider.

rutt

Here is another idea: f/2.5 50mm compact macro. I have one of these and its nice sharp lens, a little faster than anything you have now and good for portraits because you can get as close as you like. It's a fun lens to put on the camera and leave there for portraits, flowers, and closeups of baby hands and feet.

Khaos

If you are just starting out and want to see if photography is for you, the 50 1.8 is fantatsic. But if you know photography is for you, get the 50 1.4 Stopped down to 2.2 or lower, it's superb. On a 1.6 crop it's perfect as a portrait lens. You can usually find this lens used for under $300.

To give you an idea on what it can do, here are some shots I've taken with the 50 1.4 http://creative-khaos.smugmug.com/keyword/canon+50+1p4