# Baby on the way - lens help



## milkrocks (Jan 6, 2014)

Just for background I've been a Canon shooter for many years and am very comfortable with all things film and digital (35mm and MF at least). Yes, i will be getting a new camera shortly before the baby arrives. Yes, this will be perfectly fine.

I currently have a Rebel XTi (w/ grip), Tamron 17-50 2.8, 50 1.8, 55-250 IS, 40 Pancake, 430EX II and the full EOS M kit (body, 22, 18-55, 90ex). I have been rather amazed at the sensor in the EOS M compared to the XTi. 

I'm going to be purchasing a 6D in the coming weeks as well as an EOS 3 (excited to shoot some Tri-X). I imagine it will make sense to sell my crop gear. I will almost certainly buy the kit with 24-105l for walk around purposes. While the Sigma is interesting it just doesn't make sense given how cheap the 6D kits have shown up recently.

My question is related to a large aperture prime. I'm considering buying either a 50 1.2, 85 1.8 or 85 1.2 (or even 135 f2?). I'm initially leaning towards the 50 based on the combination or performance, focus speed and price. For those of you with recent newborns, is the 50 the right focal length to start with? I imagine later adding at least the 135 f2 and probably something like the 70-300L to my new FF kit. 

Thanks,

Christian


----------



## Dylan777 (Jan 6, 2014)

Early congrats on New baby and new camera kit  AWESOME - Welcome to CR 

50L & 135L is a SUPER combo on FF. If budget allows, adding 85L II or 85 f1.8 is also good. But I would go with 50L II and 135L combo first - 50mm is really easy to shoot with it on FF. 

I took over 1000 photos last x-mas with 50 & 135 combo, mostly 135


----------



## Random Orbits (Jan 6, 2014)

Congratulations on your family's addition!

I would hold off until you get the 6D kit and trying your existing lenses with it before replacing the 50 f/1.8. The 50L does not perform that well at/near its minimum focal distance (if you AFMA at MFD, you'll be off significantly at more "normal" shooting distances). See if the 50 f/1.8 will satisfy your requirements first before upgrading to the 50L.

None of the lenses you listed have very high max magnification (135L is best at 0.19x and the others range from 0.11 to 0.15x), so you'll be missing detail shots. Newborns are small, so I'd suggest getting the 100L first. It will give you the detail shots that you will not be able to get with the rest of your kit. The IS also gives it more flexiblity for general photography and portraiture.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 6, 2014)

Congrats!

+1 on the suggestion to get the 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS - it's very good for portraits, but also great for detail shots of newborns. When our third child was born, the lenses I took to the hospital were the 24-70/2.8L II and the 100L. 

Later on, I'd look at the 85/1.8 or 85L II. Do keep in mind that you likely won't be shooting wide open. The shot posted by Dylan illustrates the issue - it's at f/2, the child is in focus but the adult is not. Sometimes that's what you want, but likley more often you'll want both mom and child in focus, and f/1.2 will give you one of the child's eyes in focus…just one. Fast primes are most useful for portraits of a single person. Two people, f/4 or narrower is often needed.


----------



## Eldar (Jan 6, 2014)

Congratulations!

I also support the kit lens augmented with the 100mm f2.8L IS Macro. And if we are to believe the rumors mill, there will be new lenses coming out this year, that might be just right for you. Considering the equipment you are coming from, you will be thrilled with the low light performance of the 6D.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Jan 6, 2014)

Congratulations! 
No questions, the first lens should be the 100mm 2.8L IS. Keep and Use the 50mm 1.8 before upgrading if you want to and the 40mm pancake that is very good for street photography in FF and short portrait in APSC.
I have owned all 3 canon lenses in 50mm and the f1.2 is superb but takes time to get use to it.
Once you try the FF, very likely will not use the rebel anymore.


----------



## nvsravank (Jan 6, 2014)

I am a new parent with a baby just 7 months old. I have been taking a ton of photos and the most used range are 100mm, 85mm and then 135mm.

For new born and hospital i went with the 24-70 and 100mm. The 24-70 was more for the general mom and baby shots and family shots. They are ok, but you would want some more separation. For the first few days of photography the babies dont move. So thin DOF is possible and gives much better results - remember baby skin is not that great in the first few days and the shallow DOF makes it better.

I did not have the 85 mm L lens then but used the 100 mm L lens to capture the baby when really small.
For me the 135 was too long even with a new baby at home and even in the hospital. I did use it since i didnt have the 85 mm and wanted some shallow DOF photos. It was hard and not optimal.

For full frame get the 24-70 zoom and the 100mm macro and the 85mm.
Make sure you limit the range in the 100mm to speed the focus and for the 85 mm L while it is slower i can still get good photos of my baby. She is very photo conscious and will hold herself still for me right now. I dont how it will perform as the baby grows.

For my wife the most loved photos are from the 85mm lens. She even requested that the DSLR with that lens be left in the family room so that she can take some shots even thought i got her a Sony RX100 just for the baby. She loves the look so much and doesn't mind taking multiple shots to get a good one with proper focus that meets my standards 

PS: Make sure you enjoy the time with the baby and make sure you do a shoot int he first few days of the baby. At that time you can pose them in anyway and they will sleep through it and not move. Just do it a few min after feeding and sleeping 
Also dont forget the wife is still in pain and still angry at you! so don't stress her out much.


----------



## milkrocks (Jan 6, 2014)

Thanks for all of the advice. I wasn't considering the 100L Macro after seeing how magical the 135L can be for portraits with some additional distance. While i don't consider myself all that interested in Macro photography it does seem in the newborn context that this might change.

I guess i should have jumped on the deal from a couple of weeks ago for the 100L ($720ish after rebate). I'll definitly add this to my list. Unfortunately i won't have the $$$ for the 28-70 F2.8, body and L prime. I will most likely purchase the 24-105 instead and plan to havily augment with primes.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 6, 2014)

nvsravank said:


> ...make sure you do a shoot int he first few days of the baby. At that time you can pose them in anyway and they will sleep through it and not move.


+1

After about 2 weeks they start to stretch out, so don't miss that 'newborn curl'. 




EOS 1D X, EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM @ 47mm, 1/250 s, f/6.3, ISO 400


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Jan 6, 2014)

I hope it goes without saying (which is why I am saying it), please be careful using any flash/strobe on a newborn. 

Conga rats on the future baby. Newborns are fun to photograph.


----------



## Viggo (Jan 6, 2014)

Congrats!

I would use the 2470 and the epic Zeiss 50 f2. It's awesome for everything, and great for off center comp since it's very sharp all over, and as a superb bonus it does 1:2 macro for those super tight detail shots of toes and fingers.


----------



## DanielW (Jan 6, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> nvsravank said:
> 
> 
> > ...make sure you do a shoot int he first few days of the baby. At that time you can pose them in anyway and they will sleep through it and not move.
> ...



Lovely photo, neuro!
How did you make the BG so perfectly black?
Daniel


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 6, 2014)

DanielW said:


> Lovely photo, neuro!


Thanks!



DanielW said:



> How did you make the BG so perfectly black?











Although…using grids on the lights will get you most of the way there SOOC.


----------



## Dick (Jan 6, 2014)

The problem with the 50 mm focal length is that there is pretty much no good 50mm lens.

The suggested 100L is very good with babies. With my latest family member I almost always use the 35mm prime I currently have. That lens was also the one I used at the hospital when the baby was born and ... the blood shots are nice, but can't be shown to anyone.


----------



## Viggo (Jan 6, 2014)

Dick said:


> The problem with the 50 mm focal length is that there is pretty much no good 50mm lens.
> 
> The suggested 100L is very good with babies. With my latest family member I almost always use the 35mm prime I currently have. That lens was also the one I used at the hospital when the baby was born and ... the blood shots are nice, but can't be shown to anyone.



Almost, the Zeiss f2 is the clear exception, and unlike other 50's, it goes close and is superb up close. . I also mention the 55 Otus for argument sake.


----------



## FTb-n (Jan 6, 2014)

When my kids were infants, my main lenses were an old EF 35-70 USM zoom on a Rebel film body (i.e. full frame) and the EF-S 17-85 on an XT. The FF range of 35-70 was very effective. But, the biggest benefit was that both lenses had USM focussing and were very quiet. I had tried a third-party lens with a louder focussing system (about as aloud as the 50 1.8) and I often lost the moment because the baby heard the lens.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Jan 6, 2014)

My daughter is now about 15 months. But in the first 6 months of life, I used the 35mm for about 80% of all shots taken of her. At the beginning, almost all of the shots you get will be indoor in varying less than ideal lighting conditions (unless you plan on using flash or having him/her out all the time right away). 35mm even at 1.4 is very sharp and is easily hand holdable for shooting a baby all the way down to 1/20th of a second (not so much when you start going above the 50mm range).

In the hospital room, I had the 35mm with me along with the Zeiss 50/2 Makro which worked out well. Will see if I can find some shots from the day that are shareable.


----------



## sdsr (Jan 6, 2014)

It depends in part on how close you're willing/able to get. I don't have a baby of my own, but I've taken lots of photos of a friend's baby recently and, perhaps it's because she's not mine, but also because I don't want to startle her with a large black object making clicking noises, I used only two longish lenses, the 135L and 70-300L (the latter with bounce flash); with longer lenses you can take close-ups without being too instrusive, which suits me and, perhaps, the subject. (Much the same applies to cats/kittens etc.; I have two of those and use the same lenses usually, sometimes using the 100L or 85 1.8 instead.) All this is FF, so the same would apply to your 6D.


----------



## Viggo (Jan 6, 2014)

JohnDizzo15 said:


> My daughter is now about 15 months. But in the first 6 months of life, I used the 35mm for about 80% of all shots taken of her. At the beginning, almost all of the shots you get will be indoor in varying less than ideal lighting conditions (unless you plan on using flash or having him/her out all the time right away). 35mm even at 1.4 is very sharp and is easily hand holdable for shooting a baby all the way down to 1/20th of a second (not so much when you start going above the 50mm range).
> 
> In the hospital room, I had the 35mm with me along with the Zeiss 50/2 Makro which worked out well. Will see if I can find some shots from the day that are shareable.



+1 on the 35 L, it's the best memory you can have , so remember to include some surroundings and environment also. A 35 is perfect for that, because the wider angle includes background and the fast aperture makes the child the main subject. I also used the 24 L for the same thing, I love those images.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Jan 6, 2014)

sdsr said:


> It depends in part on how close you're willing/able to get. I don't have a baby of my own, but I've taken lots of photos of a friend's baby recently and, perhaps it's because she's not mine, but also because I don't want to startle her with a large black object making clicking noises, I used only two longish lenses, the 135L and 70-300L (the latter with bounce flash); with longer lenses you can take close-ups without being too instrusive, which suits me and, perhaps, the subject. (Much the same applies to cats/kittens etc.; I have two of those and use the same lenses usually, sometimes using the 100L or 85 1.8 instead.) All this is FF, so the same would apply to your 6D.



Your point regarding being unintrusive makes sense. But like you've said, that may also be a function of your subjects not having been your own child. I personally had no issue being completely in the face of my daughter. They are asleep for most of the day at the beginning of life anyway. The only issue really is being quiet which is taken care of with both the 5d3 or 6d as they are both capable of pretty quiet shutters.

I like the 35mm FL for the reasons Viggo has pointed out. There are only so many tight/close up shots you can have of your baby before they get repetitive. With an 85mm or longer indoors, you are not going to get much variance in your shots when it comes to photos of mom with baby as there will not be much space to work with unless you live in a castle.

Also, in the first 24 hours, my daughter spent most of her time in the little elevated bed/tray that the hospital provides where a 100mm or longer would do you no good other than for macro shots as you would have to be at an angle over the baby anyway in order to get a clean shot. Not a big deal since this only applies to the duration of the hospital stay during/post birth initially. But that is also a big moment/time that won't occur again with your baby. As such, I would want to have the best IQ and flexibility for it.

As a sidenote, another tool I used for being up close with the camera in my daughter's first few months was the shutter huggers. They are kind of goofy but helped me since she was completely fixated on them instead of the lens.


----------



## milkrocks (Jan 6, 2014)

So now all i need is to find someone to lend me their 24-70, 35L, 85L, 100L Macro and 135L. 

I really do appreciate all of the advice. I think i'll stick with the 40 pancake and 50 f1.8 to handle their respective focal ranges for now. The 40 is really quiet. I also tend to have the 22 f2 mounted to my EOS M which will make for a decent 35 f2 sollution (and second body). 

I think you've talked me out of buying the 50 1.2L at least as an initial purchase. I may rethink the Tamron 24-70 VC vs the 24-105 F4 - this is especially after seeing the actual amount of light transmitted through the Canon (closer to f5). I am very inclined to get the 100L Macro now however. Has anyone used the Non-L 100 Macro in an low light portrait/closeup context? At $500 it would be a less expensive add to the kit.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Jan 6, 2014)

milkrocks said:


> So now all i need is to find someone to lend me their 24-70, 35L, 85L, 100L Macro and 135L.
> 
> I really do appreciate all of the advice. I think i'll stick with the 40 pancake and 50 f1.8 to handle their respective focal ranges for now. The 40 is really quiet. I also tend to have the 22 f2 mounted to my EOS M which will make for a decent 35 f2 sollution (and second body).
> 
> I think you've talked me out of buying the 50 1.2L at least as an initial purchase. I may rethink the Tamron 24-70 VC vs the 24-105 F4 - this is especially after seeing the actual amount of light transmitted through the Canon (closer to f5). I am very inclined to get the 100L Macro now however. Has anyone used the Non-L 100 Macro in an low light portrait/closeup context? At $500 it would be a less expensive add to the kit.



I think you'll be fine with what you've already got. 

Re the 50mm, sigma just announced an art version. Might want to wait for reviews on that once it's out. 

I had the Non L 100mm and it was optically on par with the L which is what I have now. Only issue I would have is that the L has been as low as 725-750ish in recent months. Not much more than the non L. 

RE portrait/close up, if you are going to be indoors a lot with your baby, go with something faster than a 2.8 unless you are planning on having enough light all the time be it natural or artificial.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Jan 6, 2014)

Might I also suggest the 35/2 IS? Good for the baby since he/she won't be motoring around or anything. With the 4 stop IS, I've shot handheld at 1/10th. As a plus, it is also great for handheld video. Price tag is 549 which is a bargain in my opinion.


----------



## anthonyd (Jan 6, 2014)

When my son was about to pop out, I bough a 50 f/1.4 (for him, not for me ). It hasn't let me down, although on my crop body, it is sometimes too long when doing indoors work (which you will be doing a lot with a newborn). For example, it worked nice for the first shot bellow, but for the second I had to switch to a wider lens, although I brought the ladder inside and climbed all the way until my back was pressed against the ceiling!
Based on my experience, I would recommend against the 85 on a FF, but certainly for a 50. Your f/1.8 might work well, but the f/1.4 is not going to break the bank and will improve your depth of field and bokeh.

More importantly though, I would strongly encourage you to invest in some lights, if you don't already have some. I would argue that the difference between nice light and random light is bigger than the difference between the canon 50/1.4 and the otus. At the very least, buy a cheap diffuser/reflector (or a not so expensive and practical one like this: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/283648-REG/Impact_CRK_42K_42_5_in_1_Reflector_with.html)
If you don't even want to invest $100 in lights, build yourself a large DIY softbox. The internet is full of advice on how to do that for next to nothing.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 7, 2014)

anthonyd said:


> More importantly though, I would strongly encourage you to invest in some lights, if you don't already have some.



Excellent advice! The shot I posted above was with a pair of 600EX-RTs, each in a Lastolite 24" Ezybox. Flashes are nice because you control the light and the time. But, if you time it right, a sunlit window (or one flash) and a reflector can give great results. 

Be warned - off-camera lighting can be addictive.  

Syl Arena's _Speedliter's Handbook_ is a great resource.


----------



## IMG_0001 (Jan 7, 2014)

As the father of a 2 years old boy, I've been shooting both an old film nikon with a 50mm and crop bodies with various lenses. At the hospital and in my appartment, I fond that 50mm on crop (about 85mm on FF) was a good short telephoto for subject isolation and taking pics of the baby in the arms of relatives. However, any longer would have been a problem. 

50mm FF was ok, but I'd rather have had a 35mm for more ambiance.

As soon as your kid will walk, I think longer lenses are nice when playing outside. Something in the 135 to 200mm range. 

And most importantly, congratulations. Becoming parent is great.


----------



## FTb-n (Jan 7, 2014)

Neuro and AnthonyD, great shots! Love the blanket peek -- great timing helps when they're awake!


----------



## milkrocks (Jan 8, 2014)

Anyone have any thoughts on this kit?

6D Body
40 Pancake
50 F1.8
Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VC
Canon 100L Macro
430EX
90EX (for trigger)


----------



## IMG_0001 (Jan 8, 2014)

milkrocks said:


> Anyone have any thoughts on this kit?
> 
> 6D Body
> 40 Pancake
> ...



Well, I would personally be quite happy with that kit for a while. I would like a shorter prime, but considering the price of the 40, it does not really have any competition. In the long run, you might found yourself lacking in the teles though.


----------



## mrzero (Jan 8, 2014)

I think your proposed kit sounds good. I would've started with something much like it if I had the cash when my son was born. Don't worry about anything longer than 100mm right now, by the way. It will be a while before the kid will even get far enough away from you to use that. My issue was that my son was constantly crawling AT me when I was shooting, meaning I could never get wide enough (on crop). 

Also, think about what you're going to use to hold that 430EXII up off camera. I've been putting mine on an old freebie tripod with a Sto-Fen and that's just not cutting it. My next lighting purchase is going to be a real stand and a box or an umbrella. (Although the Sto-Fen works well when bouncing on-camera).


----------



## Oli4 (Jan 9, 2014)

I would definitly get the 100L macro. Great lens, L quality build and reasonably priced. Plus it wil let you do macro's of your baby foot, hands, face,... Priceless! I have a 5d mkII and a 50mm prime but the day after the birth I went out and got the 100mm L and have not regreted it since then. Took some beautifull macro's of my daughters and some great portrait pictures of my wife (since the 100L is also a great portrait lens!). 

Now that my kids are up and running I found my girls always running towards me as soon as I picked up my camera. My girls are always surrounding me at close range. I recently purchased the 16-35L and it has been a delight. It is very handy for "close range" and gives beautifull pictures. 

So definitly the 100L to start with, then in a year maybe the 16-35L or the sigma equivalent as it also seems to be a great lens.

regards
Olivier


----------



## bholliman (Jan 10, 2014)

milkrocks said:


> Anyone have any thoughts on this kit?
> 
> 6D Body
> 40 Pancake
> ...



The 40 and 50mm are really close together. I would suggest going with a 40 pancake or 35mm (the Canon 35 f/2 IS would be my choice) and 85 1.8. Or, maybe just a 50 and the 100L Macro for your primes?

We have a 18-month-old boy and I have used and continue to use my 50mm 1.4 quite a bit for indoor natural light shots of him. While 50mm is still not an ideal portrait lens, its a more flattering focal length than 35mm for head and sholder shots. I don't like to use 35mm for anything tighter than a full body shot personally.

As others have pointed out, little ones change quite a bit over the first few years. I used my 135L quite a bit when our son was young enough to still be immobile, but once he started crawling and walking I had to switch to my 50 1.4 and 24-70mm 2.8 zoom. The 50 1.4 really works well for indoor, natural light pictures as it fast enough to effectively blur busy backgrounds for "at play" shots around the house. Personally, I don't like to use anything wider than 50mm for people shots tighter than full-body. 

I've been using my 85mm 1.8 to good effect recently has he is less prone to running straight toward me whenever I enter the room and I can keep enough distance to use this lens effectively. I've also been using the 135 again with some nice results.

Lighting IS huge. You can get some terrific shots in natural window light, but often you will want to take pictures when the ambient light is not ideal. Off camera flash is terrific for those situations.



milkrocks said:


> 90EX (for trigger)



I've been using a 90EX as a trigger flash on my 6D for my 430EXII and recent 600EX addition. It works well, but there are limitations. The 90EX's recycle time is very slow, so you will miss shots waiting for it to recover. Also since it doesn't pivot, you can't aim it toward your slave, meaning your slave has to be in front of your camera - in the field covered by the 90EX's flash. With a on-camera trigger that piviots, you can locate you slave beside the camera or even behind (at an angle) as desired. 

I still use the 90EX as a trigger some (when I want to use two speedlites off-camera), but recently I've been using the 430EXII more and more as an on-camera trigger and the 600EX off camera as my primary light. The 430EX and 600EX also work well on-camera to bounce flash off walls and the ceiling, somethings the 90EX can't do since its fixed.

I plan to pick up another 600 soon so I have two off-camera speedlite capability with this set-up. Eventually, I want three or four 600EX's to really open up my multiple speedlite options and to use radio wave triggering instead of being somewhat limited by line-of-sight with optical triggering.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 10, 2014)

bholliman said:


> ...recently I've been using the 430EXII more and more as an on-camera trigger and the 600EX off camera as my primary light.



How are you doing that? I don't believe the 430EX II can be a master. Unless you're attaching an optical slave trigger to your 600...


----------



## bholliman (Jan 10, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> bholliman said:
> 
> 
> > ...recently I've been using the 430EXII more and more as an on-camera trigger and the 600EX off camera as my primary light.
> ...



Sorry, I misspoke. I'm using my 600EX to trigger the 430EXII off-camera.


----------



## milkrocks (Jan 22, 2014)

Does anyone have any thoughts on the Sigma 105? While i think i'd rather have the Canon 100 2.8L, the current price on B&H makes the Sigma fairly appealing.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/806377-REG/Sigma_258101_105mm_f_2_8_EX_DG.html

At $642 after rewards, shipping and no tax from B&H it seems like a pretty good deal.


----------



## Eldar (Jan 22, 2014)

milkrocks said:


> Does anyone have any thoughts on the Sigma 105? While i think i'd rather have the Canon 100 2.8L, the current price on B&H makes the Sigma fairly appealing.
> 
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/806377-REG/Sigma_258101_105mm_f_2_8_EX_DG.html
> 
> At $642 after rewards, shipping and no tax from B&H it seems like a pretty good deal.


I don´t have it myself, but I have tried it. AF was very slow, it has significant vignetting wide open, but sharpness is good. Lenstip reviewed it:
http://www.lenstip.com/index.php?test=obiektywu&test_ob=318


----------



## iaind (Jan 25, 2014)

Go for the 100L. You will not be disappointed.


----------

