# 35 & 85 or 50 & 100 for photographing kids



## switters (May 5, 2013)

I have a Canon 5DIII and 24-70 II. I take pictures of my 21-month old daughter exclusively at this point. (I used to do more street, fine art, etc. but don't have time anymore and won't for the foreseeable future.) 

I want to add a couple of fast primes for lower light work and shallower depth-of-field. I'm trying to decide between a 35 & 85 and a 50 & 100. My decision will be based on focal length preference, of course, but also on the quality/price/value of lenses available at those focal lengths. 

I'm somewhat leaning toward 35 & 85, for a few reasons. First, from what I can tell, the Sigma 35/1.4 is probably the most highly regarded of all of the 35 and 50 autofocus lenses. Second, I like environmental portraiture and tend to shoot quite a bit indoors, so the wider perspective of the 35 might be a better fit there. Third, it seems the portrait options are better at 85 than at 100? The 85L II is legendary, and many agree that the Sigma 85 comes close to it at less than half the price.

On the other hand, 50 is a great focal length for general work and casual portraits, and the 50L has beautiful, creamy bokeh and a nice look. (I actually own the 50L now, and enjoy it.) The Canon 100/2, while not as highly regarded as the Canon 85L or Sigma 85, is still a great lens by most accounts. 

I guess this also depends somewhat on my future lens plans. Frankly, the only additional lens I can imagine getting in the future (assuming my subject matter doesn't change) is a telephoto. I would probably either choose the 70-200 IS or the 135L. 

Curious to hear if you have any thoughts about this choice? Thanks.


----------



## Dick (May 5, 2013)

35 beats the S___ out of a 50 indoors in my opinion. You can't always get far enough with a 50. Is there even a decent 50 out there? The 50L isn't really sharp at all and the 1.4 is crap too.

85 or 100? I don't really know. I currently use the 100L in that spot, but 2.8 does not really do the trick when you want DOF magic. It's a really good lens anyway though. Very versatile too. The 85L II would be great I guess, but I'd claim it's more a niche lens since it's slow focusing, big & almost a one trick pony. Slow AF does not go too nicely together with kids, but the bokeh definitely is nice.


----------



## Shane1.4 (May 5, 2013)

I have the sigma 35 1.4 with an 85 1.8 and I couldn't be happier when taking pics of my boys. Though I love the 50 focal length, it sits on the self a lot because the IQ just isn't close. The 135 is my telephoto and it is amazing


----------



## CANONisOK (May 5, 2013)

You mentioned the 135L in your original post. To me, that is a great compliment to your 50L.

With children of a similar age range, I find the 135L to be the perfect lens to capture their more active moments (soccer, walks in the park, festivals, etc.) when you want to focus primarily on them in action. The colors and detail this combo produces are often fantastic straight out of the camera. (With a young two year old and a young four year old, I have little time for twiddling around in LR, DPP, etc.)

When I can find some free time (ha!) I'll try and post a couple of examples.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 5, 2013)

You have the zoom lens, buy the focal length that you find yourself using. 


Personally, I'd get a 85mm and 135mm, two focal lengths you do not have now, and the classic portrait focal lengths for 35mm cameras for the past 60 or 70 years. Even 50mm is a bit wide for portraits, but will do.


----------



## switters (May 5, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> You have the zoom lens, buy the focal length that you find yourself using.
> 
> 
> Personally, I'd get a 85mm and 135mm, two focal lengths you do not have now, and the classic portrait focal lengths for 35mm cameras for the past 60 or 70 years. Even 50mm is a bit wide for portraits, but will do.



I think a 135mm will become more useful as my daughter gets older. Right now, because she's still so young, when I'm with her I'm usually pretty close to her and the 135mm would be too long. 

The problem with 24-70 + 85 + 135 is that I wouldn't have a lens suitable for indoor use in tighter spaces.


----------



## comsense (May 5, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> You have the zoom lens, buy the focal length that you find yourself using.
> 
> 
> Personally, I'd get a 85mm and 135mm, two focal lengths you do not have now, and the classic portrait focal lengths for 35mm cameras for the past 60 or 70 years. Even 50mm is a bit wide for portraits, but will do.


+1
35 mm is least useful for kids (I hardly remember ever using it), irrespective of what it blows out and where.
50 mm still finds a decent use. I would go with 85/135, since you have a zoom. 50 f/1.8 is pretty good on 5DIII. It's so cheap that you can decide for yourself if you like this FL. I have got some good tips from CR but can't fathom why 50 f/1.4 or push & pull zooms get bad rap here (something to do with trolling). To me it's the best general purpose lens with good IQ. And, despite endless posts about why 50 f/1.2 is designed to provide good bokeh by compromising sharpness, people still believe that it's a flaw of the lens. Myths, biases, and myths...So, my bias is to skip 35 and buy/try 50/85/135 to figure out your bias. I have all FLs and my order of usage for kids is 
1. 50 mm
2. 135 mm
3. 85 mm
And it includes indoor as well as outdoor use


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 5, 2013)

switters said:


> The problem with 24-70 + 85 + 135 is that I wouldn't have a lens suitable for indoor use in tighter spaces.



You have the 24-70 II. I do have the 35L - and I haven't used it indoors since getting the 24-70 II. 



switters said:


> I think a 135mm will become more useful as my daughter gets older. Right now, because she's still so young, when I'm with her I'm usually pretty close to her and the 135mm would be too long.



When my daughter was ~2, I was using the 85/1.2L II on a 7D and it was great for portraits. The 135L on FF is equivalent to that, and when I got a 5DII, I also got the 135L. Of your two options, I'd say 35 + 85, but I'd pick 85 + 135 over that.


----------



## Eli (May 5, 2013)

If you already have the 50L and enjoy it, just keep it and add the 135, or the 85.


----------



## J.R. (May 5, 2013)

Is the AF of the 85mm 1.2 II fast enough to shoot kids who are almost always on the move


----------



## Andy_Hodapp (May 5, 2013)

I have a Sigma 105mm macro, I've used it for some portrait work with kids, When you're shooting at that length of lens, really fast apature isn't as important as it is with say a 35 or 50, you can still get great dof even when shooting partially stopped down. 

This was shot with my 105 on my T1i crop a while ago, shooting full frame the dof will be even shallower as you can stand closer to your subject. 








Exposure	0.001 sec (1/800)
Aperture	f/3.5
Focal Length	105 mm
ISO Speed	400


----------



## drjlo (May 5, 2013)

Although I own and love all my L primes, 35L, 50L, 85L II, 135L, if I wanted maximum specialness, I reach for the 85L. If you plan just a bit ahead, I don't find 85 too long on full frame indoors at all. Sure Sigma 85 f/1.4 will be "close," but for that last 5%, there is nothing for portraiture than 85L at f/1.2 IMO. Below is indoors at f/1.2, available light. 




EOSD1995 by drjlo1, on Flickr


----------



## Dylan777 (May 5, 2013)

J.R. said:


> Is the AF of the 85mm 1.2 II fast enough to shoot kids who are almost always on the move



I asked same question few days ago. Many owners claimed is ok on 1D X, has higher voltages than 5D III. Others owners seem not happy with AF speed, howver, very happy with IQ. I'm not sure I want 85L II, since my kids are quite active.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 5, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> I'm not sure I want 85L II, since my kids are quite active.



So are mine. But even active kids stop to smell the flowers...




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




EOS 5D Mark II, EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM @ 1/320 s, f/2.2, ISO 100




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


----------



## switters (May 5, 2013)

I'll definitely have to think more about this. First step, maybe I should see if I can get by with the 24-70 II indoors. I do have a 430 EX flash I sometimes use with a "black foamie thing" (as recommended here: http://neilvn.com/tangents/about/black-foamie-thing/), but frankly I don't like the extra bulk of flash.

The other question is whether I can live with a max aperture of 2.8 between 24-70mm from a depth of field perspective. In Justin's review of the Sigma 35/1.4 on this site, he says "The fast aperture and shallow depth of field will capture special moments with amazing clarity while isolating distracting backgrounds." I wouldn't have that ability with the 24-70.

That said, maybe the solution is to go with the 35 & 85 right now, since those are the focal lengths I think I'll use most, and get the 135 later. The 50 & 100 might not make as much sense if I plan to get the 135 eventually.


----------



## Dylan777 (May 5, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not sure I want 85L II, since my kids are quite active.
> ...



Neuro....the 3rd pic is so CUTE


----------



## Axilrod (May 5, 2013)

I think the Sigma 35mm and Canon 85mm f/1.8 would be an excellent, reasonably priced option. Have you checked your EXIF data to see what focal lengths you shoot the 24-70mm with most frequently? I'd try and pick between the 35mm and 50mm based on which you shoot with the most. 

And if you're looking to spend a bit more money, I'd check out the 100L in place of the 85 possibly. The 100L has amazing image stabilization, macro capability and it's great for portraits as well.


----------



## Random Orbits (May 5, 2013)

switters said:


> I'll definitely have to think more about this. First step, maybe I should see if I can get by with the 24-70 II indoors. I do have a 430 EX flash I sometimes use with a "black foamie thing" (as recommended here: http://neilvn.com/tangents/about/black-foamie-thing/), but frankly I don't like the extra bulk of flash.
> 
> The other question is whether I can live with a max aperture of 2.8 between 24-70mm from a depth of field perspective. In Justin's review of the Sigma 35/1.4 on this site, he says "The fast aperture and shallow depth of field will capture special moments with amazing clarity while isolating distracting backgrounds." I wouldn't have that ability with the 24-70.
> 
> That said, maybe the solution is to go with the 35 & 85 right now, since those are the focal lengths I think I'll use most, and get the 135 later. The 50 & 100 might not make as much sense if I plan to get the 135 eventually.



I find the 35L useful especially indoors. My house is relatively dim. On a cloudless day in the early afternoon, I'm already at ISO 800 at f/2.8 for about 1/200s. At other times of the day, I'm easily at ISO 3200 or beyond.

In another case, I was shooting an indoor birthday party, and the house was cluttered. The shallower DOF did help blur out the distracting background, which was only a couple feet behind the subject.

I do use the 24-70 II primarily outdoors, and it accounts for far more shots than the fast primes, but that's the purpose of a general purpose lens. The 24-70 II is sharper than the Canon primes and holds its own against the Sigma 35 f/1.4 (according to TDP, Sigma might be slightly sharper in the center but the zoom is better toward the edge). That said, I always find myself looking for a reason to bring a fast prime with the 24-70 II if I can.


----------



## Quasimodo (May 5, 2013)

switters said:


> I'll definitely have to think more about this. First step, maybe I should see if I can get by with the 24-70 II indoors. I do have a 430 EX flash I sometimes use with a "black foamie thing" (as recommended here: http://neilvn.com/tangents/about/black-foamie-thing/), but frankly I don't like the extra bulk of flash.
> 
> The other question is whether I can live with a max aperture of 2.8 between 24-70mm from a depth of field perspective. In Justin's review of the Sigma 35/1.4 on this site, he says "The fast aperture and shallow depth of field will capture special moments with amazing clarity while isolating distracting backgrounds." I wouldn't have that ability with the 24-70.
> 
> That said, maybe the solution is to go with the 35 & 85 right now, since those are the focal lengths I think I'll use most, and get the 135 later. The 50 & 100 might not make as much sense if I plan to get the 135 eventually.



Get the 135L first and it's the start of a long and enduring love affair. It's my favorite lens. I got both the Sigmas you mention, and the 35 is great, and the 85 will also be great, .... until you try the 1.2  Sure it is slower (the fastest is actually the 1.8, then Sigma 1.4, and then the 1.2), but there is something about the dreamy IQ of the 1.2 that keeps you wanting it badly. I saw someone suggested the 100L here. Great lens, but imo the AF is a bit too slow for action portraits. 

Just my two cents.


----------



## switters (May 5, 2013)

Quasimodo said:


> Get the 135L first and it's the start of a long and enduring love affair. It's my favorite lens. I got both the Sigmas you mention, and the 35 is great, and the 85 will also be great, .... until you try the 1.2  Sure it is slower (the fastest is actually the 1.8, then Sigma 1.4, and then the 1.2), but there is something about the dreamy IQ of the 1.2 that keeps you wanting it badly. I saw someone suggested the 100L here. Great lens, but imo the AF is a bit too slow for action portraits.
> 
> Just my two cents.



Way back when I had a Canon 30D, I tried the 135L. It was amazing—definitely one of the most impressive lenses (if not the most) I've ever used. But I don't think I've ever tried a 135mm on full frame, and I don't even have a zoom in that range, so I probably should give it a shot.


----------



## Quasimodo (May 5, 2013)

switters said:


> Quasimodo said:
> 
> 
> > Get the 135L first and it's the start of a long and enduring love affair. It's my favorite lens. I got both the Sigmas you mention, and the 35 is great, and the 85 will also be great, .... until you try the 1.2  Sure it is slower (the fastest is actually the 1.8, then Sigma 1.4, and then the 1.2), but there is something about the dreamy IQ of the 1.2 that keeps you wanting it badly. I saw someone suggested the 100L here. Great lens, but imo the AF is a bit too slow for action portraits.
> ...



It's even great with the 2xIII TC


----------



## wickidwombat (May 6, 2013)

i have the sigma 35 1.4 and the sigma 85 1.4

both are superb however I would wait on the 85 and see what sigma do with the art series if they give this lens a significant upgrade it will be amazing
maybe go the canon 85 1.8 in the mean time


----------



## Kengur (May 6, 2013)

I bought a 135 while on crop. Later I went FF just to get 135 "just right". I guess Canon made it one of the transition lenses, that's too good value for the $ and you want more when you get one. Also I went for 35 as a walk around, cause I got tired of zooms for now


----------



## pwp (May 6, 2013)

Your 24-70 f/2.8II is an absolutely awesome lens. Why would you consider focal lengths that fall in the 24-70 range? My 24-70 f/2.8II is so good I've sold my primes as they were sitting unused. I'm talking about the highly regarded EF 24 f/1.4II and a Sigma 50 F/1.4. I don't miss either of them.

Shooting kids? You next purchase really should be a longer lens. You'll be familiar with the advantages of a zoom. Look at the 70-200 f/2.8isII. Plenty of photographers on the planet would name this as their all-time favourite, most used lens. It's heavy & expensive, but wow does it deliver...

I doubt there is a Canon pro shooter on the anywhere on the planet who doesn't have one, or have it on their shopping list.

-PW


----------



## eml58 (May 6, 2013)

Either the 85f/1.2 L II or the 135f/2 L are going to give you years of wonderful Images, both are classic lenses, I would say the autofocus on the 5DMK ii can be a little slow, but since I've gone to the 5DMK II & 1Dx it's no longer an issue, not that I felt it was a major before, but autofocus speed is much improved now. The following Photos aren't kids, although the Monkey is a Kid Monkey so probably counts.

Smokey Guy: 5DMK III 85f/1.2 L II, @ f/4.5 & 1/160th ISO320

Snow Monkey Kid: 1Dx 135f/2, @ f/5.6 & 1/125th ISO800


----------



## Hobby Shooter (May 6, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not sure I want 85L II, since my kids are quite active.
> ...


I wish I could get my girls to stay still like that sometime


----------



## Hobby Shooter (May 6, 2013)

pwp said:


> Your 24-70 f/2.8II is an absolutely awesome lens. Why would you consider focal lengths that fall in the 24-70 range? My 24-70 f/2.8II is so good I've sold my primes as they were sitting unused. I'm talking about the highly regarded EF 24 f/1.4II and a Sigma 50 F/1.4. I don't miss either of them.
> 
> Shooting kids? You next purchase really should be a longer lens. You'll be familiar with the advantages of a zoom. Look at the 70-200 f/2.8isII. Plenty of photographers on the planet would name this as their all-time favourite, most used lens. It's heavy & expensive, but wow does it deliver...
> 
> ...


Couldn't agree more. I might not be a pro, but I've been a parent for more that ten years now and zooms rule. The kids just doesn't move from your side to another, they actually move towards you and away from you also. No offense, but there can be a tendency to prime snobbery here. I can understand that in a studio environment or any controled situation primes are very good, but for many other situations I think zooms are great. Especiall when they are as good as the 70-200 or the new 24-70 MkII (haven't tried that one though)


----------



## switters (May 6, 2013)

Hobby Shooter said:


> pwp said:
> 
> 
> > Your 24-70 f/2.8II is an absolutely awesome lens. Why would you consider focal lengths that fall in the 24-70 range? My 24-70 f/2.8II is so good I've sold my primes as they were sitting unused. I'm talking about the highly regarded EF 24 f/1.4II and a Sigma 50 F/1.4. I don't miss either of them.
> ...



I can't speak for anyone else, but here's why I want primes in addition to the 24-70 II (which indeed is a fantastic lens):
— *More light gathering capabilities*. I have a custom setting with a minimum shutter speed of 1/250 to freeze movement and prevent blur. When I'm shooting indoors, which is often, f/2.8 and 1/250 often yields an ISO that is fairly high. Even with the 5DIII's excellent high ISO, I prefer to keep it as low as possible.
— *Shallower depth-of-field*. I think super shallow DOF can be overused, but I like having the option of really isolating my subject from the background. See below for an example of a picture I took with the 85/1.4 a while back.
— *Creative limitation*. In my case, having one fewer choice to make (i.e. focal length) can lead to more creative compositions. This is why I sometimes prefer primes to zooms, even if the zooms are more flexible.

I am definitely considering a 70-200 II, but not right at this moment. I just don't think I'd use it enough, given my shooting style and my tendency to work very close to my subject. I'm not even sure I'd use a 135 much, but I'm going to give that a shot next. Who knows, maybe I'll change my mind and get an 85 and 135 in addition to the 24-70 instead of a 35 & 85. We'll see.


----------



## 7enderbender (May 6, 2013)

For kids in my opinion and experience 50L + 135L on full-frame. Hands down.


----------



## Viggo (May 6, 2013)

I use the 24, 35 and 50 when shooting the kids, I used to own the 85 (a bunch of times) and it doesn't keep up with two-three year olds. The 35 L is my favorite, I like the contact you get with the subject with wide apertures and that focal, really pops. I have gotten a few fun, cool images laying on the floor with the 24 also. i recently bought a 24-70 mk1, and that is veryvery useful with kids, I set my desired focal and move my feet to frame instead of zooming to frame, that way you can control the perspective and best of all, change it in a split-second. I find the 70-200 also very useful (and I am a prime guy) and I see people mention the 135, I have also owned that a few times, but for ME I can't really find a place for it, it's too long or too short for me. The 70-200 on FF is awesome for all sorts of people shots.


----------

