35 & 85 or 50 & 100 for photographing kids

[Quasimodo]

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

 

[wickidwombat]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[7enderbender]

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

 

[Viggo]

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.