This momma is looking to buy a camera ?

[Loswr]

If you look around at other child photographers and their work, many are shooting with prime lenses and/or 24-70mm f2.8 or 70-200 f2.8 lens. You'd be hard pressed to find any photographer taking pics of children with a kit lens.

Depends on where you look. Many portrait studios use 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lenses on APS-C bodies, and they work fine. When you have control over lighting (and lots of it) and background, f/6.3-8 works well.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

If you look around at other child photographers and their work, many are shooting with prime lenses and/or 24-70mm f2.8 or 70-200 f2.8 lens. You'd be hard pressed to find any photographer taking pics of children with a kit lens.

Depends on where you look. Many portrait studios use 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lenses on APS-C bodies, and they work fine. When you have control over lighting (and lots of it) and background, f/6.3-8 works well.

Yes, those who ask about equipment for a specific purpose, expect proper answers to your questions. I think it would sadism on my part, if I recommend as must have for photos and videos of children Canon 5D mark III + 24-70 II + 70-200 II. I would only make such a recommendation if the OP said she wants to print paper larger than 1 meter long.

 

[distant.star]

.
Looks like you've made a wise choice.

I predict two years from now, one of these two will be the case:

1. You will bring the camera out once in a while to take pictures for special occasions -- birthdays, holidays, etc. Otherwise, it stays in a closet.

2. You will be taking pictures all the time and will be feeling the limitations of that body and lens. You may have acquired another lens or two -- and you'll be here asking whether folks think you should get the 7D2 or a full frame.

Either way, the camera you're getting will have been a good choice.

 

[Ruined]

If you look around at other child photographers and their work, many are shooting with prime lenses and/or 24-70mm f2.8 or 70-200 f2.8 lens. You'd be hard pressed to find any photographer taking pics of children with a kit lens.

Depends on where you look. Many portrait studios use 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lenses on APS-C bodies, and they work fine. When you have control over lighting (and lots of it) and background, f/6.3-8 works well.

This is true. There is a massive misconception that pros usually do portraits at f/2 and below, while if in controlled setting usually the opposite is true. If you have proper lighting, best results are often gotten at f/8 instead of f/2. So in these situations, you could easily use a slow lens and get decent results. You would still probably get better sharpness and less artifacts out of a medium quality prime than a kit lens, but this would likely not be an earth-shattering difference.

I have done fantastic portraits myself using a T4i, 17-55mm f/2.8 @ f/8 55mm, three 600ex-rts, a couple of softboxes, and an x-drop backdrop kit.

But, if you are just going to be doing portraits off-the-cuff with say a single flash/no flash, this is where a faster lens comes into play. For the T4i, you could go with a prime like the nifty fifty, or with the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM for a little better control framing+IS.

 

[Lesuediane]

.
Looks like you've made a wise choice.

I predict two years from now, one of these two will be the case:

1. You will bring the camera out once in a while to take pictures for special occasions -- birthdays, holidays, etc. Otherwise, it stays in a closet.

2. You will be taking pictures all the time and will be feeling the limitations of that body and lens. You may have acquired another lens or two -- and you'll be here asking whether folks think you should get the 7D2 or a full frame.

Either way, the camera you're getting will have been a good choice.

Thank you . I too a, wondering where this little camera will take me.. I do feel confident in my choice. I can learn on this camera and upgrade in two or so years to something "better " if need be ;-)

 

[Ruined]

So you would suggest the 50mm over the 40mm ? I almost ordered the 50mm when I ordered the camera , talked myself out of it .

With prime lenses there are probably two situations you'd want to target at first:
1) "Walkaround" general purpose lens - on APS-C ranges between 24mm-35mm
2) "Portrait" lens - on APS-C ranges between 40mm-60mm

One thing to consider before buying a prime lens is not only the focal length and speed which are often the primary characteristics people focus on, but also other factors that will greatly affect image quality such as: sharpness across the frame, chromatic aberration, autofocus speed, build quality, image stabilization.

So some of the portrait lenses that are popular on APS-C specifically are:
1) EF 40mm pancake prime - Portable, light, quiet focus, nice bokeh, and better overall image quality than the 50mm f/1.8. The only problem is that 40mm is on the short end for portraiture focal length wise. But that aside, this lens will generally have better output than the 50mm 1.8. No IS.

2) EF 50mm f/1.8 II prime - Portable, light, but loud focus and harsh bokeh that looks like pentagons instead of circles at f/4 and over. No IS. Build quality is pretty bad and this lens (or the 1.4) will most likely be replaced by the 50mm f/1.8 IS within the next 6 months - though that lens will easily be over $500 when it comes out.

3) EF 50mm f/1.4 USM prime - Larger than the first two, decent bokeh but still not as good as many other Canon lenses. Autofocus mechanism seems to break very easily on this lens. No image stabilization.

4) EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM - I have heard great things about this one, and while you will need a bit more space to shoot with it, you will you will likely get better results than you would on any of the first three above based on the feedback I've heard. Plus it can be used for close up macro photography in addition to portraits. Not really any downsides on this lens aside from it lacks IS and is more expensive than the first three.

5) EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Zoom - This is one of the best lenses available for the T4i, and I personally have shot some excellent portraits with it. The build quality and optical quality are both top notch, and it is extremely versatile. It can be used as a wide angle, portrait, or anywhere in between. At f/2.8 it is much faster than a kit lens, and it has image stabilization. If you were to buy only two additional lenses for your t4i ever, I'd recommend this one and the 55-250 STM. Note that it is likely that the 50 1.8 IS will likely trump this lens in image quality once it is released (since it apparently uses the same optical design as the fantastic stabilized 24-28-35mm lenses).

In summary: The 40mm is too short for portraiture and lacks IS, the 50 1.8 has poor bokeh&build and lacks IS, and the 50 1.4 has a track record of breaking easily and still isn't quite up to snuff with modern standards. The 60mm Macro would be a good buy IMO if you can cope with it lacking IS.

So, my recommendation would be:
* to save up for the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM zoom (great quality, most flexible, has IS ~$799)
* get the EF-S 60mm Macro (great quality, and has macro mode, most affordable of these at ~$399)
* wait for the upcoming 50mm f/1.8 IS USM (best quality, has IS, but isn't available yet ~$599)

 

[MovingViolations]

Well after much consideration I ordered a factory refurbished t4i with 18-135 STM lens .. Im excited to began my photography journey .. I will keep everyone posted . Thank you for all your help. Truly !!

Congrats! Enjoy it!

I think you made a great choice for starting out. I started with a 10D before the Rebel series was introduced. My brother still shoots great images with the original 6mp Rebel. My current 1D MII is still serving it's purpose but I too want a smaller lighter body for hand holding. I hear the 70D calling my name.

 

[bholliman]

So, my recommendation would be:
* to save up for the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM zoom (great quality, most flexible, has IS)
* get the EF-S 60mm Macro (great quality, and has macro mode, most affordable)
* wait for the upcoming 50mm f/1.8 IS USM (best quality, has IS, but isn't available yet)

+1, also as Ruined pointed out, the EF-S 55-250 STM is a terrific lens if you need something with more reach than your 135mm.

@Lesuediane - Don't feel that you need to buy additional lenses or other equipment at this point. Many of us here in the CR Forum are afflicted with G.A.S. (gear acquisition syndrome) :, so recommendations for newer, faster and better equipment is the norm. I recommend spending at a year or longer getting familiar with your new gear and then evaluate. I know people who have are perfectly content with a Rebel and kit (18-55) lens for years and never feel the need to buy anything else. The camera and lens you are buying will make excellent pictures and videos.

 

[dcm]

If you look around at other child photographers and their work, many are shooting with prime lenses and/or 24-70mm f2.8 or 70-200 f2.8 lens. You'd be hard pressed to find any photographer taking pics of children with a kit lens.

Depends on where you look. Many portrait studios use 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lenses on APS-C bodies, and they work fine. When you have control over lighting (and lots of it) and background, f/6.3-8 works well.

The key is to learn how to get the best photos out of the equipment you have before you begin adding more gear. This helps you identify where your gear is holding you back and what you might want to upgrade.

Several years ago on vacation I ran into a photographer using the studio supplied EF 28-135 (~$500) lens on a 1DsMkII (~$8000) body for outdoor family portraits. Once again, lots of light and a good background (lake with mountains in the distance). He knew how to get the most out of it so the photos turned out well, but we both figured they might be a bit better with an L series lens.

 

[drob]

Don't want to be argumentative with any fellow photographers but would some one please post a quality/clean/low noise image of a child/baby, indoors, without flashes and soft boxes, and nice bokeh taken with a kit lens?? I was amazed with my kit lens and 60d indoors at an ISO of 1600 but again, having the ability with a 50mm to blur the background and block the clutter in my kitchen or the multitudes of background toys was priceless. For 100 dollars, it was a great investment for the 50mm 1.8 and have gotten many images of my children not possible with higher apertures of the kit lens.

 

[Grumbaki]

If you look around at other child photographers and their work, many are shooting with prime lenses and/or 24-70mm f2.8 or 70-200 f2.8 lens. You'd be hard pressed to find any photographer taking pics of children with a kit lens.

Depends on where you look. Many portrait studios use 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lenses on APS-C bodies, and they work fine. When you have control over lighting (and lots of it) and background, f/6.3-8 works well.

This is true. There is a massive misconception that pros usually do portraits at f/2 and below, while if in controlled setting usually the opposite is true. If you have proper lighting, best results are often gotten at f/8 instead of f/2.

While generally agreeing with the convo, there's one more misconception in your statement. Most lenses are not at their sharpest at f8. One can view that during a simple Focal test. Quite a few of my L are at their sharpest at f5.6.