What say you - Baby Lens

[huntersdad]

I asked on the main forum but thought I might ask here since it seems that many of you do babies. My wife and i are going through the adoption process and will likely have a newborn sometime between now and the end of the year. My current setup is a 40d, 17-50 2.8, Sigma 120-400 and Sigma EF-530 flash. Alot of people on the main forum suggested picking up a 30 or 50 mm lense. Local camera store went in a different way and said go macro to do the detail shows of feet/ears/eyelashes/etc...

What do you guy use and what would you suggest?

[lesleysmeshly]

My main baby/child lens is my 50mm f1.4. I LOVE this lens for low light, fast focus, beautiful and sharp photos. I do have a 100mm macro that I do the details with but it is much slower to focus, only f2.8, and on a crop body you have to get very far away to take any shots that arne't macro. IMO you will get much more use from the 50 or 30 than a dedicated macro. You can still get awesome shots of the little details with a non macro lens. I also have a 28mm f1.8 that I don't use much so I would say the 50 hands down!

[huntersdad]

If memory serves me right, the lens he showed me was Tamron 60mm 2.0 and 90 2.8. Both seemed pretty nice and did well in the store light.

[lesleysmeshly]

I've heard great things about the 60mm 2.0. The only downfall of the 90 is the 2.8 as I generally shoot all my newborns at 2.0 or 2.2 and even as wide as 1.4 on occasion.

[SCOTTinNJ]

How about the 50 1.4 and some kenko extension tubes?

(and congrats on the new baby!)

[huntersdad]

Not really familiar with extension tubes. WHat are they?

[picturecrazy]

For babies, all I've been using lately is the Sigma 30mm F/1.4 and the Canon 60mm Macro on my 40D. The macro lets you get nice and close to those little ones. I was finding the 50 1.4 and 17-55 had minimum focusing distances that were too far for some good facial closeups and shots of little toes and fingers!

[SCOTTinNJ]

Not really familiar with extension tubes. WHat are they?

These are the tubes (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/375102-REG/Kenko_AEXTUBEDGC_Auto_Extension_Tube_Set.html).

This thread (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=745099&highlight=tubes)has an example I posted of what they can do.

[RenoJohn]

My main baby/child lens is my 50mm f1.4. I LOVE this lens for low light, fast focus, beautiful and sharp photos. I do have a 100mm macro that I do the details with but it is much slower to focus, only f2.8, and on a crop body you have to get very far away to take any shots that arne't macro. IMO you will get much more use from the 50 or 30 than a dedicated macro. You can still get awesome shots of the little details with a non macro lens. I also have a 28mm f1.8 that I don't use much so I would say the 50 hands down!
I'll piggy-back on the 50mm as I feel it is great for kid shots

I have a 50/1.4 and also the "nify fifty" that I use when taking the more simple camera out for abuse ....my point being that I use these 50mm for my child more than anything else combined. IMO, with 1.6 crop factor they really are great for kid portraits and simple fun shots.

[NellyNero]

Depends on your budget, but I second either the 50mm 1.4 or 50mm 1.8 if you're on a Canon. I have the cheaper nifty fifty - it's pin sharp and I've never felt the focus was too slow to capture kids - I bought it 3 years ago and have no need to upgrade to the 1.4.

[TweakMDS]

I'd go with the Canon or Sigma 50 1.4 or Sigma's 30 1.4, though you might as well get a 50 1.8 for very cheap. Both of the macros you mentioned are great, but I think a 50mm none macro lens can get close enough with some cropping to show plenty of details. Even your Tamron does 1:4.5 which is easily close enough to show eyelashes and babyhands.