October 25, 2014, 06:22:26 PM

Author Topic: 35 & 85 or 50 & 100 for photographing kids  (Read 6514 times)

Dylan777

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4197
    • View Profile
Re: 35 & 85 or 50 & 100 for photographing kids
« Reply #15 on: May 05, 2013, 02:26:22 PM »
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

Neuro....the 3rd pic is so CUTE ;)
Body: 1DX -- 5D III
Zoom: 16-35L f4 IS -- 24-70L II -- 70-200L f2.8 IS II
Prime: 40mm -- 85L II -- 135L -- 200L f2 IS -- 400L f2.8 IS II

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 35 & 85 or 50 & 100 for photographing kids
« Reply #15 on: May 05, 2013, 02:26:22 PM »

Axilrod

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1376
    • View Profile
Re: 35 & 85 or 50 & 100 for photographing kids
« Reply #16 on: May 05, 2013, 02:33:54 PM »
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. 
5DIII/5DII/Bunch of L's and ZE's, currently rearranging.

Random Orbits

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1373
    • View Profile
Re: 35 & 85 or 50 & 100 for photographing kids
« Reply #17 on: May 05, 2013, 04:01:36 PM »
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

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 940
  • Easily intrigued :)
    • View Profile
    • 500px.com
Re: 35 & 85 or 50 & 100 for photographing kids
« Reply #18 on: May 05, 2013, 04:56:18 PM »
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.
1Dx, (7D II) 5x600 EX RT, ST-E3
Canon:16-35L II,  24-105L , 70-200L IS II, 135L, 100L, 2x III TC, EF 25II, 40 F2.8 STM, Sigma 35 F1.4 Art, Sigma 50 F1.4 Art, Sigma 85 F1.4, Sigma 150-500.
www.500px.com/gerhard1972

switters

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 39
    • View Profile
Re: 35 & 85 or 50 & 100 for photographing kids
« Reply #19 on: May 05, 2013, 05:09:38 PM »

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

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 940
  • Easily intrigued :)
    • View Profile
    • 500px.com
Re: 35 & 85 or 50 & 100 for photographing kids
« Reply #20 on: May 05, 2013, 05:14:52 PM »

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.

It's even great with the 2xIII TC :)
1Dx, (7D II) 5x600 EX RT, ST-E3
Canon:16-35L II,  24-105L , 70-200L IS II, 135L, 100L, 2x III TC, EF 25II, 40 F2.8 STM, Sigma 35 F1.4 Art, Sigma 50 F1.4 Art, Sigma 85 F1.4, Sigma 150-500.
www.500px.com/gerhard1972

wickidwombat

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4522
    • View Profile
Re: 35 & 85 or 50 & 100 for photographing kids
« Reply #21 on: May 06, 2013, 12:02:29 AM »
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
APS-H Fanboy

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 35 & 85 or 50 & 100 for photographing kids
« Reply #21 on: May 06, 2013, 12:02:29 AM »

Kengur

  • SX60 HS
  • **
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Re: 35 & 85 or 50 & 100 for photographing kids
« Reply #22 on: May 06, 2013, 01:19:10 AM »
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 :D

pwp

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1606
    • View Profile
Re: 35 & 85 or 50 & 100 for photographing kids
« Reply #23 on: May 06, 2013, 02:09:36 AM »
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

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1504
  • 1Dx
    • View Profile
Re: 35 & 85 or 50 & 100 for photographing kids
« Reply #24 on: May 06, 2013, 04:54:14 AM »
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
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing

Hobby Shooter

  • Guest
Re: 35 & 85 or 50 & 100 for photographing kids
« Reply #25 on: May 06, 2013, 05:23:12 AM »
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
I wish I could get my girls to stay still like that sometime  :)

Hobby Shooter

  • Guest
Re: 35 & 85 or 50 & 100 for photographing kids
« Reply #26 on: May 06, 2013, 05:27:23 AM »
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
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

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 39
    • View Profile
Re: 35 & 85 or 50 & 100 for photographing kids
« Reply #27 on: May 06, 2013, 08:47:30 AM »
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
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)

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.


canon rumors FORUM

Re: 35 & 85 or 50 & 100 for photographing kids
« Reply #27 on: May 06, 2013, 08:47:30 AM »

7enderbender

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 635
    • View Profile
Re: 35 & 85 or 50 & 100 for photographing kids
« Reply #28 on: May 06, 2013, 09:34:55 AM »
For kids in my opinion and experience 50L + 135L on full-frame. Hands down.
5DII - 50L - 135L - 200 2.8L - 24-105 - 580EXII - 430EXII - FD 500/8 - AE1-p - bag full of FD lenses

Viggo

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2086
    • View Profile
Re: 35 & 85 or 50 & 100 for photographing kids
« Reply #29 on: May 06, 2013, 09:36:54 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2013, 09:40:41 AM by Viggo »
1dx, 24-70 L II, 50 Art, 200 f2.0 L

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 35 & 85 or 50 & 100 for photographing kids
« Reply #29 on: May 06, 2013, 09:36:54 AM »