Baby on the way - lens help

[milkrocks]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Loswr]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Loswr]

...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]

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]

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]

...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

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

 

[Loswr]

Lovely photo, neuro!

Thanks!

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.