New Baby on the way... and I gots a lot of Questions!

Joemess

Most of them are not suitable for here, but this one is.


I currently shoot a 30D in wildlife / outdoor settings. Except for the odd gathering I rarely shoot people. However in a couple of months my wife and I are going to have our first child and I am going to use this happy occasion to get a little more glass...

But seriously, I would like to get a new lens that is more suited for indoor / people. Currently my lineup is a 28-135 1:3.5-5.6 IS, a EF100 2.8, and a 100-400L. While not a shabby line up, these are not what I really want to b e lugging around along to take shots of my son. What size would ya reccomend I would like this to be a prime if possible. I really have an open budget on this and am not opposed to an L, however if a lesser lens will serve me well I am not against it either.


Thanks guys,

Andrew

DavidTO

hmmm.

When I think about shooting kids on a daily basis, I don't think prime.

Elaine

Any particular reason you're set on a prime?

Tommyboy

Congratulations! My wife informed me about a week ago that we, too, are expecting. How far along are you two?

In answer to your question, and given your current lenses, I will offer my subjective suggestions.

For a prime, I'd consider a 50mm 1.4. Great lens, good portrait length, fast, and relatively affordable. I love mine.

For a zoom (I fear DavidTO may be right about this) I would consider one of the following:

EF-S 17-85 This is a great lens, very practical length (28-135 equivalent) and very affordable. The icing on the cake is that it's image stabilized. I've read some rumblings that it's not the greatest optical quality, but that is contrary to my experience. 95% of my shots are with this lens. Given your other lenses, you could sell off the 28-135 (45-215 equivalent) in favor of this lens if you wished.

EF-S 17-55 Also a great lens, a bit shorter than the one above, it is also image stabilized AND has a fixed aperture of f/2.8. The big IF here is that you give up 30% of your focal range and pay nearly $500 for the extra light. Can't comment on the optical quality difference, if any.

That's my two cents. About what it's worth. Good luck with the baby and the lens.

swintonphoto

Joemess wrote:

But seriously, I would like to get a new lens that is more suited for indoor / people. Currently my lineup is a 28-135 1:3.5-5.6 IS, a EF100 2.8, and a 100-400L.

I would look at something that offers a bit more of a wide perspective than your 28-135. This would increase the flexibility of your current range, while allowing you to shoot in tighter quarters. Some that come to mind are:
10-22mm 3.5-4.5
16-35mm 2.8L
17-40mm 4.0L
17-55mm 2.8
There are also a couple Sigma and Tamrons that might serve you well.

Joemess

DavidTO wrote:

hmmm.

When I think about shooting kids on a daily basis, I don't think prime.

\

Well, I figured that I have the zoom covered. I was thinking that a prime would allow me more freedom in lower light conditions / inside. (I would rather not always use a flash) But I may be completely wrong in this.


Andrew

cmason

That 28-135 is a great lens, I think a nice walkaround lens. Anything else, like a Tamron 28-75, the Canon 17-55, 24-70, 24-105, etc will be as big if not bigger.

Perhaps the kit lens 18-55 or maybe the 18-55 IS would be smaller. Finally, the 50 1.8 is a steal, a prime , and nice indoor lens.

Joemess

Tommyboy wrote:

Congratulations! My wife informed me about a week ago that we, too, are expecting. How far along are you two?

In answer to your question, and given your current lenses, I will offer my subjective suggestions.

For a prime, I'd consider a 50mm 1.4. Great lens, good portrait length, fast, and relatively affordable. I love mine.

For a zoom (I fear DavidTO may be right about this) I would consider one of the following:

Congrats! we are about 28 weeks along. This is our first so we really don't know what to expect. So far its been pretty easy for my wife.... all things considered...

DavidTO

cmason wrote:

That 28-135 is a great lens, I think a nice walkaround lens. Anything else, like a Tamron 28-75, the Canon 17-55, 24-70, 24-105, etc will be as big if not bigger.

Perhaps the kit lens 18-55 or maybe the 18-55 IS would be smaller. Finally, the 50 1.8 is a steal, a prime , and nice indoor lens.

Get the 17-55 EFS. It's IS, 2.8 all the way. Great lens.

Another great lens is the 24-105, but I think that 24 is not as wide as I would like on a 1.6 crop camera. If you had that plus the 10-22, then you'd be set, as well.

You have zooms, but aside from the 100 2.8 none of your lenses are great lenses. I would kill 2 birds with one stone. Better zoom, better low light performance. I think you'll be happy. You can sell as you buy, if you like.

The 50 1.8 is a great deal. The 1.4 is a much better lens. They're both not wide enough for every day photography of children, IMO. As your kids grow they'll give you a different perspective on the world. Their perspective is a close, wide angle one, in my experience. When you shoot with a long lens you'll get nice shots, no doubt, but you'll not capture their perspective on the world, IMO. It's a getting down on their level kinda thing.

Elaine

When I switched camera systems a month ago, I also went from a 28mm being my widest focal length (28-75 2.8) to 17mm being my widest (17-55 2.8). It sure is fun to have that wider zoom especially indoors! And that particular lens has IS and is fast and sharp! It surprises me how quickly it acquires focus in low light. I'm really enjoying it. Even though I don't have it, I think the 50 1.4 would be a nice prime choice. I have the 85 1.8, but that's probably too long for much indoor work.

Congrats to you and your wife! You will soon have endless photo opportunities!

EDIT: Just saw DavidTO's post...great points and I agree!

Joemess

DavidTO wrote:

Get the 17-55 EFS. It's IS, 2.8 all the way. Great lens.

Another great lens is the 24-105, but I think that 24 is not as wide as I would like on a 1.6 crop camera. If you had that plus the 10-22, then you'd be set, as well.

You have zooms, but aside from the 100 2.8 none of your lenses are great lenses. I would kill 2 birds with one stone. Better zoom, better low light performance. I think you'll be happy. You can sell as you buy, if you like.

Thanks, I think I will look into those lenses, I really was not thinking about him once he gets mobile.


Andrew shuffling off with lower lip poked out since he made fun of my lenses....

DavidTO

Joemess wrote:

Thanks, I think I will look into those lenses, I really was not thinking about him once he gets mobile.


Andrew shuffling off with lower lip poked out since he made fun of my lenses....

Well, both 50s are nice, and they'd keep you shooting in low light and you could do something more substantial down the line.

HarveyMushman

Congrats.

It's gonna be awhile before the critter moves around much. Most of your shooting will be indoors. 50/1.8 is an easy and safe choice. If you want to spend big bucks I'm sure Canon has 1.4 and 1.2 versions of same.

saurora

The 50's are reasonable in price and easy to sell if you should later find you are not using them much. The 1.8 is very slow to focus. When children start "moving" a zoom comes to my mind. The 50 can sometimes be too long indoors (an 85 is definitely too long) only allowing for headshots and cropped bodies, depending on the size of your living space (and the size of the person you are shooting). Right now I use my 35 prime indoor the most. It's gorgeous. But I am finding that I am not that steady (hand shake) even with a short lens and my next lens will most likely be the 18-55 IS. The IS is very important to me, and worth the extra cost. I have the 28-105 f/4 which is a spectactular piece of glass and a nice range (I used it today at a baby shower in a restaurant), but I'd like a 2.8 for the extra light.

Tommyboy

HarveyMushman wrote:

It's gonna be awhile before the critter moves around much.

Exactly what I was going to say.

Don't mean to hijack. . . .

On a crop sensor body (Canon, Nikon) a 28 - anything is only about 44 or 45mm focal length. Given that "normal" for a 24X36 neg (35mm) is 45mm, that's not wide-angle at all. When I sold cameras (when 35mm ruled the world), there were few 50 - 135 lenses and the like and they didn't sell. Ever.

I respect the fact that some of these 24-something and 28-something lenses are optically sound lenses, or L, or fast, or whatever, but for me, I simply couldn't be without the wide angle (24 - 28mm equivalent).

I'm amazed at the number of folks who use these lenses on crop-sensor cameras. Claustrophopic to me. To each his own, I suppose. . . .

[/hijack]

I still say 17-85 or 17-55 if you're rich.

swintonphoto

Tommyboy wrote:

I respect the fact that some of these 24-something and 28-something lenses are optically sound lenses, or L, or fast, or whatever, but for me, I simply couldn't be without the wide angle (24 - 28mm equivalent).

I agree...

Scott_Quier

The 17-55 f/2.8 IS - hands down would be my choice. This is a great lens for indoor, available light work.

Later one, for when the "critter" is moving around the back yard, the 24-105 f4L IS is another good choice. But, it's too slow and too narrow at the wide end for most indoor work.

swintonphoto

Scott_Quier wrote:

The 17-55 f/2.8 IS - hands down would be my choice. This is a great lens for indoor, available light work.

I agree. Great choice. Though I am not a Canon owner, I have spent time with this lens and a 30D. Simply excellent.

jchin

I totally agree with everyone on the EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS (too bad I cannot afford it yet). I have the EF-S 17-85/4-5.6 IS. I got it when it came out, before the EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS was available, and it is cheaper.

At the time of my purchasing the 20D, I found that my EF 22-55/4-5.6 lens was better (wider) and more useful than my EF 35-135/4-5.6 when it cames to taking pictures of my infant. I later upgraded to the EF-S 17-85/4-5.6 because I found the EF 22-55mm not having the reach I need.

BTW, the IS helps a lot when you hold the camera with one hand and make gestures with the other to make your baby laugh.

If you could afford the EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS, get it. If not, get the cheaper EF-S 17-85/4-5.6 IS.

Lastly, the EF 24-105/4L IS is a great lens. I have it mounted to my 40D all the time. The f/4 is great and the 105mm reach is wonderful for those shots of the kids from across the room.

Personally, I tried and found that the EF-S 10-22/4-5.6 lens too wide and didn't like that barrel effect the lens gives. IMO, it isn't for taking pictures of my kids, maybe more for landscapes and buildings.

My recommendation for a prime, either the EF 50/1.4 or its cheaper sibling the EF 50/1.8; both are very good lenses. I upgraded from a 50/1.8 to a 50/1.4 for the faster focusing motor and the better bokeh.