# Best Lens for photographing children



## nvsravank (Nov 14, 2012)

Hi folks,

What is the best lens to take photos of toddlers and moving babies. With just borns it is easy - My 100MM macro works perfectly (f2.8). just born don't move much and the speed of focus is fast enough.

This weekend i was taking photos of children at a birthday party (friends party and i was just a guest playing with my camera) and found that i like the separation of the 100 mm macro, but the speed of focus was not enough. I took out my 24-70 and found the focus OK but the separation wasn't there. I also felt that the 100 mm was just a tad too long for the space i had at the party.

I was first thinking 85mm F1.2, but then realized that the focus speed is too slow. So my question on what is best?

I also have a 70-200 zoom, but that just scares the kids and I can't run around the place as easily with the monster zoom


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 14, 2012)

Perhaps the 85/1.8 or the Sigma 85/1.4? However, I've had good success with the 85L II at kids birthday parties. Shooting at f/1.4-f/1.6 is a great way to isolate one kid from the crowd and melt the rest of them into a colorful blur.


----------



## IIIHobbs (Nov 14, 2012)

Depending on body (Crop vs FF) even the 85 could be long inside. 

A 50mm on a crop is an excellent focal length for your intended shooting and offers several options for max aperture (1.2, 1.4, 1.8).


----------



## Random Orbits (Nov 14, 2012)

Inside: a fast 35 or a fast 50.

Outside: The 70-200 comes out anyway! ;D


----------



## nvsravank (Nov 14, 2012)

FF 5D3 is the camera. 
I dont want 50 mm since I want to stand a bit off and capture the kids as they are kids and not for posed shots of the kids. Even with 70 mm i was getting too much of the background which was taking it away from the kids faces. When I say too much - it is too much context, too much detail in the background (Bokeh) etc.

I am not trying for full length shots of the children with their wonderful dresses. I have another lens for it. I am trying for tight shots of their face or at most them interacting with an object or another kid. 

Parents want a photo of themselves with the kids but the most memorable shots that i have taken are of kids when they are just playing. As soon as they know i am taking their photos - the childishness disappears as they are scared or they become more playful and make faces at me or just scamper away depending on the kid and my previous interaction with them. neither of these outcomes are what i am trying to capture. So i need to stand a bit away.

I tried the 100 mm macro because i did not know what would be the best distance to take these shots and it was a Lens I had.

I am taking these in parties and they normally have enough space for a 100mm also. The problem with the 100 mm length was that the folks in the room did not realize i was taking photos of kids and kept coming in between me and my subject. I guess i want to be far away to not distract the kids but close enough that the parents know what I am trying to do.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 14, 2012)

nvsravank said:


> FF 5D3 is the camera. ... I am trying for tight shots of their face or at most them interacting with an object or another kid.



Have to say...I read that, and I immediately think *135mm f/2L*. It's just about the perfect lens for tight portraits on FF. 

You might have the issue with people stepping in front, but even awareness of your presence won't prevent that.


----------



## Jay Khaos (Nov 14, 2012)

1dx with 200mm f2 IS w/ tele extender (the only choice)

great quality and bokeh but with reduced diaper-coloration aberrations and crying volume (stand far away)

plus with the 1DX you can catch all diaper crappings at 12 frames per second


----------



## crasher8 (Nov 14, 2012)

When light is abundant I love the 70-200 f/4L for shooting kids outdoors. I use it between 85-135. I have no issues with the 24-70 2.8L Mk1 with regards to speed of AF but the color rendition isn't as nice as the 70-200. I love my 100 2.8 Macro for portraits and candids. Especially with film at 100 ISO. On the 5D3 it's razor sharp and speedy as well. The 85 1.8 would be a great choice but you might have some purple fringing correction in post.

Bottom line…kids are tough!


----------



## Eli (Nov 14, 2012)

nvsravank said:


> This weekend i was taking photos of children at a birthday party (friends party and i was just a guest playing with my camera) and found that i like the separation of the 100 mm macro, but the speed of focus was not enough. I took out my 24-70 and found the focus OK but the separation wasn't there. I also felt that the 100 mm was just a tad too long for the space i had at the party.



Do you have the L or non L? My 100L focuses quite fast. Did you try with the focus limiter switch?


----------



## nvsravank (Nov 14, 2012)

100L . I forgot about the focus limiter. I will try with that next time before i go buy something


----------



## DrDeano (Nov 14, 2012)

Outdoors or in a well-lit location I use 70-200. If it's a spacious yard, I even pop the 2X extender on.

Indoors I agree that the 85mm is a good idea because it's a good focal length for tighter shots and will still give you a few stops of light.

If you really want to nerd out, use the 70-200 indoors and set up some off-camera flashes around the room.

For one party I set up my Ranger RX unit with two heads aimed at the ceiling so I could have beautiful light.

Kids are challenging to photograph, but IMO they are the most fun because of how genuine and real they look when captured as stills.


----------



## robbymack (Nov 14, 2012)

Nothing screams creepy more than some dude taking photos of kids from a block away with some huge white telephoto. 85 1.8 or 135L are good choices. They are relatively small and most importantly black so you don't stick out like a narc.


----------



## DrDeano (Nov 14, 2012)

robbymack said:


> Nothing screams creepy more than some dude taking photos of kids from a block away with some huge white telephoto. 85 1.8 or 135L are good choices. They are relatively small and most importantly black so you don't stick out like a narc.



Methinks if appearances mean more than getting the great shot, you should probably just stick to your point and shoot.

When shoot my kid's parties or at friend's kid parties, they can't wait to see the shots because they know they will be great.

Why people get hung up on the "white lens" thing is beyond me.


----------



## Quasimodo (Nov 14, 2012)

I would agree with several here about the 135 and 85L II. they can separate the kids from the crowd, and you having a 5D III gives you quite a range in ISO performance. AI Servo will be good though. I have lost a lot of shots of my two young boys trying to capture them in One shot mode 

Myself, I don't have the 85L II (I got the Siggy 1.4 which is also great, at least until you have tried the 85L II  )


----------



## crasher8 (Nov 14, 2012)

When they are your own kids, or at a location where most to everyone is comfortable with you shooting, only the paranoid will have issues. I do not give a rat's ass what people think of me and my camera, big lenses or small when I'm shooting my kids at public places. If anyone has the issues robbymack does well they haven't had the balls to approach me about it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 15, 2012)

I took my almost 5 year-old daughter to her gymnastics class a couple of weeks ago. My wife asked me to email her a pic during the class, so I held up my iPhone and caught a well-timed pic of her hanging from an uneven bar. The guy next to me looked over at the iPhone 'shutter click' and said, "If you want to get an actually decent pic, you need a real camera." He reached into his bag and pulled out his T2i with an EF-S 55-250mm mounted, and gave me a little grin. I grinned back and replied, "You know, it's really more about composition and timing than about gear." He took some shots, well-spaced since the popup flash was firing (despite the kids being out of its effective range) as I watched the kids. When mine started a bounce down the trampoline track a few minutes later, I was unable to resist. I looked over and said as I reached down, "Ever seen Crocodile Dundee? 'That's not a camera..._that's_ a camera,'" as I pulled out my 1D X with the 70-200 II and fired off a 12 fps burst. 

True story. 

(1D X, EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II @ 200mm, 1/500 s, f/2.8, ISO 10000)


----------



## Eugene (Nov 15, 2012)

Well said


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Nov 15, 2012)

Depends on how you move around, I have two girls 7 and 10, and they move around alot. Inside I like the 35L if I can get close enough. But for this purpose (and others) I sometimes wish I had the 135L also from what I've read on this forum.


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Nov 15, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> I took my almost 5 year-old daughter to her gymnastics class a couple of weeks ago. My wife asked me to email her a pic during the class, so I held up my iPhone and caught a well-timed pic of her hanging from an uneven bar. The guy next to me looked over at the iPhone 'shutter click' and said, "If you want to get an actually decent pic, you need a real camera." He reached into his bag and pulled out his T2i with an EF-S 55-250mm mounted, and gave me a little grin. I grinned back and replied, "You know, it's really more about composition and timing than about gear." He took some shots, well-spaced since the popup flash was firing (despite the kids being out of its effective range) as I watched the kids. When mine started a bounce down the trampoline track a few minutes later, I was unable to resist. I looked over and said as I reached down, "Ever seen Crocodile Dundee? 'That's not a camera..._that's_ a camera,'" as I pulled out my 1D X with the 70-200 II and fired off a 12 fps burst.
> 
> True story.
> 
> (1D X, EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II @ 200mm, 1/500 s, f/2.8, ISO 10000)


Childish but fun!


----------



## Promature (Nov 15, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> nvsravank said:
> 
> 
> > FF 5D3 is the camera. ... I am trying for tight shots of their face or at most them interacting with an object or another kid.
> ...



If you are taking inside shots though, the 85 1.8 might be a good choice too. Depends on the house layout, but I'd be afraid that the 135 might not let me get enough in the frame. At least with the 85 you can always crop down.


----------



## gmrza (Nov 15, 2012)

nvsravank said:


> I also have a 70-200 zoom, but that just scares the kids and I can't run around the place as easily with the monster zoom



My wife does the photos for one of the daycare centres in our neighbourhood, and the setup she has been using until now is a gripped 5DII, 70-200 f/2.8L IS II and 580EXII. (The 5DII has just been relegated to backup duty.)

To reduce the "scare factor" of the big white lens she made an owl with big round eyes that fits around the end of the lens - the front element/hood is the owl's tummy. It looks quite amusing, and the kids love it. She forgot the owl on the first morning's shooting this year, and one little girl actually remembered it, and asked what had happened to it! After lunch, owl was back on duty. ;-)

What helps your mobility with the big white lens is a shoulder strap (like a BlackRapid) which allows you to have the camera hanging at your side.


----------



## codewizpt (Nov 16, 2012)

I bought the 35L and the Gary Fong LightSphere when my daughter was born and it's my home kit.
Outside I use the 135L, but I'm thinking in buying the 85mm to complete


----------



## tron (Nov 17, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> I took my almost 5 year-old daughter to her gymnastics class a couple of weeks ago. My wife asked me to email her a pic during the class, so I held up my iPhone and caught a well-timed pic of her hanging from an uneven bar. The guy next to me looked over at the iPhone 'shutter click' and said, "If you want to get an actually decent pic, you need a real camera." He reached into his bag and pulled out his T2i with an EF-S 55-250mm mounted, and gave me a little grin. I grinned back and replied, "You know, it's really more about composition and timing than about gear." He took some shots, well-spaced since the popup flash was firing (despite the kids being out of its effective range) as I watched the kids. When mine started a bounce down the trampoline track a few minutes later, I was unable to resist. I looked over and said as I reached down, "Ever seen Crocodile Dundee? 'That's not a camera..._that's_ a camera,'" as I pulled out my 1D X with the 70-200 II and fired off a 12 fps burst.
> 
> True story.
> 
> (1D X, EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II @ 200mm, 1/500 s, f/2.8, ISO 10000)


Since I know more or less the equipment you use I started laughing before even reaching at the end of this post ;D


----------



## sandymandy (Nov 17, 2012)

I even wonder how someone with a Rebel and non L lens thinks about showing off their gear. I dont like showing off too highend gear but at least its somewhat reasonable.
Must have been a case of "See what a BIG LENS i got!" Im sure u get the analogy ^-^


----------



## Viggo (Nov 17, 2012)

Check my setup in the signature, I 75% of images are of kids in the younger than 5 years..

I love the 24, 35 for laying on the floor when they play. Outside i also use those two for the most. The 50 gets a lot of use always, and equal the 85. I can't really see me using anything else... the closer the better. I don't like a 300 to "not interfere" and shoot from a distance, because first off, you often loose the connection to the subject, and second, you isolate the subject, whilst I found setting and surroundings where they like to play much more interesting. If you see a wooden wall behind the kid you fail to see his favorite climbing rack you would've gotten with the 24. Why i love the lenses I have is because when including the background with wide lenses, you can make them less intrusive with a much larger aperture.

Only my opinion..

I agree with Neuro about the 85 for portraits of course, and in a birthday setting or something is very different from out playing with one or two kids. I like to take my son to kindergarten on Sundays, then we can shoot on all of his favorite climbers and slides with on clutter and interruption.. i'll post a few samples later


----------



## Viggo (Nov 17, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> I took my almost 5 year-old daughter to her gymnastics class a couple of weeks ago. My wife asked me to email her a pic during the class, so I held up my iPhone and caught a well-timed pic of her hanging from an uneven bar. The guy next to me looked over at the iPhone 'shutter click' and said, "If you want to get an actually decent pic, you need a real camera." He reached into his bag and pulled out his T2i with an EF-S 55-250mm mounted, and gave me a little grin. I grinned back and replied, "You know, it's really more about composition and timing than about gear." He took some shots, well-spaced since the popup flash was firing (despite the kids being out of its effective range) as I watched the kids. When mine started a bounce down the trampoline track a few minutes later, I was unable to resist. I looked over and said as I reached down, "Ever seen Crocodile Dundee? 'That's not a camera..._that's_ a camera,'" as I pulled out my 1D X with the 70-200 II and fired off a 12 fps burst.
> 
> True story.
> 
> (1D X, EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II @ 200mm, 1/500 s, f/2.8, ISO 10000)



To read that made me so happy , I wish I was there to see his face!


----------



## bycostello (Nov 17, 2012)

i like shooting kids with the 70-200.. as keeps a good bit if distance between us...


----------



## ScottFielding (Nov 17, 2012)

I mainly use my 50L indoors and the 70-200 2.8 II outdoors. 

The 135 f/2 is my next purchase which I am sure will be utilised too on the kids!


----------



## Harv (Nov 18, 2012)

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the 100 f/2.... A sharp, fast lens at a very affordable cost.


----------



## tron (Nov 18, 2012)

Harv said:


> at a very affordable cost.


Canon will ...fix this sometime in the future !!!


----------



## rpt (Nov 18, 2012)

Viggo said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I took my almost 5 year-old daughter to her gymnastics class a couple of weeks ago. My wife asked me to email her a pic during the class, so I held up my iPhone and caught a well-timed pic of her hanging from an uneven bar. The guy next to me looked over at the iPhone 'shutter click' and said, "If you want to get an actually decent pic, you need a real camera." He reached into his bag and pulled out his T2i with an EF-S 55-250mm mounted, and gave me a little grin. I grinned back and replied, "You know, it's really more about composition and timing than about gear." He took some shots, well-spaced since the popup flash was firing (despite the kids being out of its effective range) as I watched the kids. When mine started a bounce down the trampoline track a few minutes later, I was unable to resist. I looked over and said as I reached down, "Ever seen Crocodile Dundee? 'That's not a camera..._that's_ a camera,'" as I pulled out my 1D X with the 70-200 II and fired off a 12 fps burst.
> ...


Oh man! That must have hurt! You should have shot one of his face


----------



## pj1974 (Nov 19, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> I took my almost 5 year-old daughter to her gymnastics class a couple of weeks ago. My wife asked me to email her a pic during the class, so I held up my iPhone and caught a well-timed pic of her hanging from an uneven bar. The guy next to me looked over at the iPhone 'shutter click' and said, "If you want to get an actually decent pic, you need a real camera." He reached into his bag and pulled out his T2i with an EF-S 55-250mm mounted, and gave me a little grin. I grinned back and replied, "You know, it's really more about composition and timing than about gear." He took some shots, well-spaced since the popup flash was firing (despite the kids being out of its effective range) as I watched the kids. When mine started a bounce down the trampoline track a few minutes later, I was unable to resist. I looked over and said as I reached down, "Ever seen Crocodile Dundee? 'That's not a camera..._that's_ a camera,'" as I pulled out my 1D X with the 70-200 II and fired off a 12 fps burst.
> 
> True story.
> 
> (1D X, EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II @ 200mm, 1/500 s, f/2.8, ISO 10000)



CLASSIC!

Loved reading the above (true) story! I too, would've loved to see the expression on the other guy's face. ;D
And... being an Aussie, very glad that you quoted from 'dear old' Paul Hogan... aka Crocodile Dundee! 8)

Cheers...

Paul


----------



## tron (Nov 19, 2012)

I think not taking a picture of his face was an unfortunate omission. ;D

I understand though that the guy would have a slight problem with that :


----------



## TexPhoto (Nov 19, 2012)

From day care to 2nd grade my favorite FF kids lens has been my 24-105mm zoom. Wide enough to get the whole class at Halloween, but still get in tight on my little monster. IS helps indoors. Of course the 70-200mm is important for sports, school play etc, but when mixing it up, I need the versatility of the zoom. 

I had an 85mm f1.2 for a while, and I don't think I ever got 1 sharp photo of a child. The kids just move too fast.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 19, 2012)

TexPhoto said:


> I had an 85mm f1.2 for a while, and I don't think I ever got 1 sharp photo of a child. The kids just move too fast.


You just have to catch them when they stop to smell the flowers... 




EOS 7D, EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM, 1/250 s, f/2.2, ISO 100




EOS 5D Mark II, EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM @ 1/60 s, f/1.8, ISO 400


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Nov 19, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> TexPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > I had an 85mm f1.2 for a while, and I don't think I ever got 1 sharp photo of a child. The kids just move too fast.
> ...


Beautiful pictures!


----------

