Best lens for baby portraits?

[PJL]

+1 for the 85 1.8. It was my first prime and I got it right before I had my daughter. I used it first on a Rebel XT and now a 6D. The length was a bit long indoors on the Rebel but I still really liked it. Liked it so much I may get the 135 next. Oddly it forced me to take photos from a different perspective which produced results I really liked.

Here's one from the 85 1.8 on a 6d from yesterday. It doesn't show off the bokeh (she can't sit up so there's not much distance between her and the background!) but I like the color rendition and sharpness. I should have shot it at a slightly narrower aperture so her full face is in focus but it still came out pretty good.

Either way, rent or buy the lens before the baby comes so you have some time to practice. I got mine a week early and it wasn't quite enough time with it prior.

 

[@!ex]

hands down, 50 1.2L

one I took of my girlfriends nephew a few weeks ago...

 

[ChilledXpress]

+1 50L


30/52 Weeks of Sailor - Baby blue... by David KM, on Flickr

32/52 Weeks of Sailor - Christmas Eve Playtime... by David KM, on Flickr

 

[babiesphotos.ca]

New parent here, 18 months old twins.

I've upgraded bodies, bought number of lenses, rented bunch, so here is my take:

Zooms are easier to use, but more ordinary. I'd look Tamron 17-50 2.8 (non VC), or even 28-75 2.8. Second one is meant for full frame, so I have it on Canon full frame, but also on Sony crop, and love it crop too, They're very good, not spectacular, but great use of $400-$500 for new, or about $350-$400 used

Primes are more limiting, but keepers you get with these will be something to behold. So if you're just starting, I'd suggest primes, 35,50 and 85 is what's practical on crop body. You have 40, so I'd say get 50 1.8 if you want to save a bit ($100), or 50 1.4 if you feel like spending ($350), and then get 85 1.8 ($350). You don't lose much with 50 1.8 vs 1.4, and you can spend that money on 85 1.8, so I'd start with 50 1.8 and 85 1.8.

85 1.8 is most limiting and hard to work indoors, but will give you some stunning pictures.

Rent 50 1.2 and 85 1.2, they're something else, but don't buy unless you're rich, or you catch bug. Rental in USA lensrental.com, in Canada Vistek and Headshots in major cities...

Some samples of my pics at http://babiesphotos.ca/ though this is from few different cameras...

 

[wickidwombat]

I've actually found the eos-m +22mm f2 to be an awesome little baby snapper of our 12 weeks old daughter
reasons
- its small and light and easily operated single handedly when holding the baby
- minimum focus distance is 150mm
- easy to pop into the nappy bag and get around with
- the auto focus tracking of faces works really well and while you are holding the baby playing with them the camera can track their eye quite well
- the slow AF isnt really a problem for this sort of shooting

other than that I amusing the 5Dmk3 and sima 85f1.4 and now the sigma 35 f1.4 too

 

[babiesphotos.ca]

New parent here, 18 months old twins.

I've upgraded bodies, bought number of lenses, rented bunch, so here is my take:

Zooms are easier to use, but more ordinary. I'd look Tamron 17-50 2.8 (non VC), or even 28-75 2.8. Second one is meant for full frame, so I have it on Canon full frame, but also on Sony crop, and love it crop too, They're very good, not spectacular, but great use of $400-$500 for new, or about $350-$400 used

Primes are more limiting, but keepers you get with these will be something to behold. So if you're just starting, I'd suggest primes, 35,50 and 85 is what's practical on crop body. You have 40, so I'd say get 50 1.8 if you want to save a bit ($100), or 50 1.4 if you feel like spending ($350), and then get 85 1.8 ($350). You don't lose much with 50 1.8 vs 1.4, and you can spend that money on 85 1.8, so I'd start with 50 1.8 and 85 1.8.

85 1.8 is most limiting and hard to work indoors, but will give you some stunning pictures.

Rent 50 1.2 and 85 1.2, they're something else, but don't buy unless you're rich, or you catch bug. Rental in USA lensrental.com, in Canada Vistek and Headshots in major cities...

Some samples of my pics at http://babiesphotos.ca/ though this is from few different cameras...

50 1.4

 

[babiesphotos.ca]

New parent here, 18 months old twins.

I've upgraded bodies, bought number of lenses, rented bunch, so here is my take:

Zooms are easier to use, but more ordinary. I'd look Tamron 17-50 2.8 (non VC), or even 28-75 2.8. Second one is meant for full frame, so I have it on Canon full frame, but also on Sony crop, and love it crop too, They're very good, not spectacular, but great use of $400-$500 for new, or about $350-$400 used

Primes are more limiting, but keepers you get with these will be something to behold. So if you're just starting, I'd suggest primes, 35,50 and 85 is what's practical on crop body. You have 40, so I'd say get 50 1.8 if you want to save a bit ($100), or 50 1.4 if you feel like spending ($350), and then get 85 1.8 ($350). You don't lose much with 50 1.8 vs 1.4, and you can spend that money on 85 1.8, so I'd start with 50 1.8 and 85 1.8.

85 1.8 is most limiting and hard to work indoors, but will give you some stunning pictures.

Rent 50 1.2 and 85 1.2, they're something else, but don't buy unless you're rich, or you catch bug. Rental in USA lensrental.com, in Canada Vistek and Headshots in major cities...

Some samples of my pics at http://babiesphotos.ca/ though this is from few different cameras...

50 1.8

 

[babiesphotos.ca]

New parent here, 18 months old twins.

I've upgraded bodies, bought number of lenses, rented bunch, so here is my take:

Zooms are easier to use, but more ordinary. I'd look Tamron 17-50 2.8 (non VC), or even 28-75 2.8. Second one is meant for full frame, so I have it on Canon full frame, but also on Sony crop, and love it crop too, They're very good, not spectacular, but great use of $400-$500 for new, or about $350-$400 used

Primes are more limiting, but keepers you get with these will be something to behold. So if you're just starting, I'd suggest primes, 35,50 and 85 is what's practical on crop body. You have 40, so I'd say get 50 1.8 if you want to save a bit ($100), or 50 1.4 if you feel like spending ($350), and then get 85 1.8 ($350). You don't lose much with 50 1.8 vs 1.4, and you can spend that money on 85 1.8, so I'd start with 50 1.8 and 85 1.8.

85 1.8 is most limiting and hard to work indoors, but will give you some stunning pictures.

Rent 50 1.2 and 85 1.2, they're something else, but don't buy unless you're rich, or you catch bug. Rental in USA lensrental.com, in Canada Vistek and Headshots in major cities...

Some samples of my pics at http://babiesphotos.ca/ though this is from few different cameras...

Tamron 28-75 2.8

 

[verysimplejason]

I'm using APS-C and I find my 28mm F1.8 and 50mm F1.8 very useful and convenient. If you have a full frame, I'm guessing that a 40-50mm + 85mm focal range are also nice. Flash must be avoided if you can thus a fast lens is a must. A good video LED light is also much preferable than a speedlight if you want some creative lighting.

 

[robbymack]

Congrats! I sort of remember what life was like before kids, I'm sure it was fun, but nothing compares to being a dad. Enjoy it! Honestly the best lens for baby photos is which ever is in your hand when they do something cute. Anyone of the primes mentioned above would be fine. Just to throw another idea out there, how about a zoom like the Efs 17-55 2.8 IS?

 

[bdunbar79]

If you're doing this for baby portraits, there's really no reason at all to go with the expenses of the 50L and 85L. I've seen no evidence from anyone that the 50 f/1.4, 50 f/1.8, or 85 f/1.8 does any worse than the L's at wider aperturers. Maybe the bokeh isn't as good but that's not the point for baby portraits. While I appreciate photos from the L lenses, typically what I see is "oh this is the best lens, see my photo!" Well that's nice, but who's to say the non-L couldn't have gotten that exact same photo? What I mean is, if you had a shot with the 85L and 85 f/1.8 side by side with the same camera and settings, then I could see. But using only one lens to justify it doesn't seem too scientific to me.

 

[verysimplejason]

Here's a sample. I used a 500D + 50mm F1.8. You don't need an expensive equipment to get good pictures.

 

[sandymandy]

Just any lens that is a bit soft wide open. For baby portraits a bit softness is perfect Dont forget babies usually dont just sit there not moving at all and smiling in the camera. Aperture like 1.2 will give u lots of oof shots

 

[BrandonKing96]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned it but if you can get a decent quality used 24-70 mark I, then you have a really good all-round lens with extremely beautiful quality. Prime wise, I'd go for an 85mm f/1.8.

If money isn't an issue, I highly recommend:
85L, 24-70L II, 70-200 f/2.8L IS II.

 

[smithy]

I take a lot of baby photos, and tend to use the Canon 50mm f/1.8 and the Sigma 85mm f/1.4. (They are a good option if you don't have thousands of dollars to spend.)

Sometimes I'll attach my 24-70mm f/2.8L if I need some flexibility, but most of the time it's just the two primes. The downside to the 85mm primes (of all brands, as far as I'm aware), is that the minimum focussing distance is around 1 metre (approx 3 feet).

If Canon update their 50mm f/1.4 I'd probably buy it, otherwise I'll upgrade to the Sigma 50mm in the near future.

 

[CJRodgers]

This was with 135 L on 5d mkii. So an 85mm on a crop would be roughly the same

 

[J.R.]

I'd suggest a 17-55 f/2.8 on the crop body! Probably the best and THE only EFS lens whose IQ is at par with the precious Ls.

 

[7enderbender]

I second the 50 1.4. Safe the rest of the money for diapers and supermarket delivery service...

 

[drob]

I'm a fellow dad and have spent the last 2 years photographing and learning about what gear is great for the kids. I've started off with a 50mm 1.8, 85mm 1.8, & my kit lens (on a 60D). Loved the 50mm but had a hard time in close quarters, so picked up the Sigma 30 1.4 and now find it is on my camera most of the time indoors. Once I had the 30mm 1.4, the 50mm 1.8 seemed noisy and slow, so I upgraded to the 50mm 1.4. Great lens. Also, love the 85mm but it is so long on a crop body it is not realistic to shoot indoors with it. Also found that primes were just to hard for trips to the zoo, park, aquarium, etc and my kit lens (18-135mm) more or less sucked. So I purchased a used 24-105L and love it for a general purpose lens. The 30mm 1.4 for Sigma is on sale now for 289. Can't beat the price.

 

[DanielW]

On a crop body I would buy the 50mm f/1.4 (I did) and rent the 50mm f/1.2L. I would also consider the new Sigma 35mm f/1.4, which I might even buy later on, even though I just love my 17-55mm f/2.8.
Congratulations, and happy shooting!
Daniel