Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses
Thread started 17 Mar 2009 (Tuesday) 03:24
Prev/next
Poll"What lens is the best option for newborn babies?"
Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro
7
18.4%
Canon 85mm f/1.2
16
42.1%
Canon 85mm f/1.2 with extension tube
3
7.9%
Canon 24-105 f/4
10
26.3%
Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS
2
5.3%

38 voters, 38 votes given (1 choice only choices can be voted per member)). VOTING IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY.
BROWSE ALL POLLS
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

Best lens for newborn photos

 
SunTsu
Goldmember
SunTsu's Avatar
1,591 posts
Joined Dec 2006
Westcoast, Canada
Mar 17, 2009 03:24 |  #1

Just wondering what lens/combo you think is best for newborn (like one week new) photos. (I'm only including the lenses that I own). I'm inclined to think either the 100mm macro or the 85 f/1.2 with extension tube. I'm specifically referring to use on a full-frame body.


Canon 5D Mark II+BG-E6, Canon 5D+BG-E4 | 200-400mmL IS, 85mm F1.2L II, TS-E 17mm F4.0L , 16-35mm F2.8L II, 24-105mmL IS, 70-200mm [COLOR=#000000]F2.8L II IS, 100mm F2.8L Macro IS, 100mm F2.8 Macro, 40mm F2.8, 1.4x II, 2.0x III | EF12+25 II | Canon 600EX-RT (x5) | Gitzo support
Full Gear List

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
joe ­ mama
Senior Member
joe mama's Avatar
666 posts
Joined Oct 2005
Earth
Mar 17, 2009 03:56 |  #2
banned

Were it me (and it was/is), it would be the 24 / 1.4L and 15 / 2.8 FE. For example:

Canon 5D + 24 / 1.4L @ f / 2, 1/60, ISO 1600

http://www.pbase.com/j​oemama/image/92131266 (external link)

IMAGE: http://www.pbase.com/joemama/image/92131266/original.jpg


Canon 5D + 24 / 1.4L @ f / 2.8, 1/50, ISO 400

http://www.pbase.com/j​oemama/image/96627913 (external link)

IMAGE: http://www.pbase.com/joemama/image/96627913/original.jpg



Unfortunately, I didn't get my 15 / 2.8 FE until sometime later:

Canon 5D + 15 / 2.8 FE @ f/2.8, 1/250, ISO 1600

http://www.pbase.com/j​oemama/image/106560765 (external link)

IMAGE: http://www.pbase.com/joemama/image/106560765/original.jpg


Canon 5D + 15 / 2.8 FE @ f / 2.8, 1/100, ISO 3200

http://www.pbase.com/j​oemama/image/109433099 (external link)

IMAGE: http://www.pbase.com/joemama/image/109433099/original.jpg

--joe

www.josephjamesphotogr​aphy.comexternal link
www.pbase.com/joemamaexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
sleepo
Member
248 posts
Joined Mar 2008
Mar 17, 2009 04:04 |  #3

Nice shots... 24 and 15 aren't normally what spring to mind when people ask about baby portraits, but those shots work well :)

I'd go with the 85mm f/1.2, though I don't have the 1.2 (only the 1.8 ) so I don't know what the MFD's like (and whether you need the extension tube).


http://flickr.com/phot​os/stephenhildrey/external link

LOG IN TO REPLY
joe ­ mama
Senior Member
joe mama's Avatar
666 posts
Joined Oct 2005
Earth
Mar 17, 2009 04:09 |  #4
banned

sleepo wrote in post #7539962external link
Nice shots... 24 and 15 aren't normally what spring to mind when people ask about baby portraits, but those shots work well

Thanks! For my tastes and style, the wider AOV and closer perspective that UWAs offer seems more fitting for infants and toddlers than does the more classic framing and perspective used with longer lenses.


--joe

www.josephjamesphotogr​aphy.comexternal link
www.pbase.com/joemamaexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
nuffi
Senior Member
926 posts
Joined Nov 2008
Mar 17, 2009 04:18 |  #5

Hey man. I like how you're being encouraging and all, but shouldn't you get your little one something easier to manage than an SLR? At a week old they don't have a lot of strength or coordination.

I'd recommend a g10 while they're developing their eye.




LOG IN TO REPLY
viet
Goldmember
1,019 posts
Joined Jul 2007
Mar 17, 2009 05:48 |  #6

None of these options, either a fast 24, 35 or 50. You don't want to flash your newborn too much, nor does the hospital.




LOG IN TO REPLY
SunTsu
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
SunTsu's Avatar
1,591 posts
Joined Dec 2006
Westcoast, Canada
Mar 18, 2009 02:27 |  #7

I noticed many people recommended a 24-105 and I'm a bit surprised by it. For those that recommended it, could you please explain?

sleepo wrote in post #7539962external link
Nice shots... 24 and 15 aren't normally what spring to mind when people ask about baby portraits, but those shots work well :)

I'd go with the 85mm f/1.2, though I don't have the 1.2 (only the 1.8 ) so I don't know what the MFD's like (and whether you need the extension tube).

I've tried to use the 85 f/1.2 before and the minimum focus distance has been an issue. That's why I thought that an extension tube would be useful. I also figured that since a flash would not be preferred, a fast lens would be useful.

joe mama wrote in post #7539973external link
Thanks! For my tastes and style, the wider AOV and closer perspective that UWAs offer seems more fitting for infants and toddlers than does the more classic framing and perspective used with longer lenses.

I never even thought of using a wide angle lens, but I love the shots and will try using a wider angle.

nuffi wrote in post #7540001external link
Hey man. I like how you're being encouraging and all, but shouldn't you get your little one something easier to manage than an SLR? At a week old they don't have a lot of strength or coordination.

I'd recommend a g10 while they're developing their eye.

LOL.


Canon 5D Mark II+BG-E6, Canon 5D+BG-E4 | 200-400mmL IS, 85mm F1.2L II, TS-E 17mm F4.0L , 16-35mm F2.8L II, 24-105mmL IS, 70-200mm [COLOR=#000000]F2.8L II IS, 100mm F2.8L Macro IS, 100mm F2.8 Macro, 40mm F2.8, 1.4x II, 2.0x III | EF12+25 II | Canon 600EX-RT (x5) | Gitzo support
Full Gear List

LOG IN TO REPLY
KenjiS
"Holy crap its long!"
KenjiS's Avatar
20,538 posts
Gallery: 82 photos
Joined Oct 2008
Buffalo, NY
Mar 18, 2009 02:31 |  #8

nuffi wrote in post #7540001external link
Hey man. I like how you're being encouraging and all, but shouldn't you get your little one something easier to manage than an SLR? At a week old they don't have a lot of strength or coordination.

I'd recommend a g10 while they're developing their eye.

No no no, get them a rebel, the larger control surfaces and buttons will make it alot easier for a little one to hold and use...


Gear, New and Old! RAW Club Member
Wanted: 7D Mark II or EOS 6D
Deviantart (external link)
Flickr (This is where my good stuff is!) (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
JelleVerherstraeten
Goldmember
JelleVerherstraeten's Avatar
2,440 posts
Joined Dec 2008
Antwerp, Belgium
Mar 18, 2009 06:08 |  #9

The FE makes beautiful pictures. Nice shots!


-Jelle l Gear l Website (external link) l

LOG IN TO REPLY
timnosenzo
Cream of the Crop
8,816 posts
Joined Sep 2005
CT
Mar 18, 2009 06:37 |  #10

For me it would think the 24 & 50.


connecticut wedding photographerexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
bohdank
Cream of the Crop
bohdank's Avatar
14,060 posts
Joined Jan 2008
Montreal, Canada
Mar 18, 2009 06:44 |  #11

None of your choices, imo, but if those are the only choices, the 24-105. The other lenses are too long.

An extension tube on those lenses would give you, in some cases, only a few inches of focus range (I asked about tubes on another thread), so that's not an option.


Bohdan - I may be, and probably am, completely wrong.
Gear List

Montreal Concert, Event and Portrait Photographerexternal link
Flickrexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
trevstro
Member
trevstro's Avatar
71 posts
Joined Nov 2008
Roswell, GA
Mar 18, 2009 07:30 as a reply to bohdank's post |  #12

I will be using the 24 1.4 II on Friday for the birth of my daughter. I have a 17-55, but rented the 24 for the next few weeks. I really like the minimum focusing distance of the 24.




LOG IN TO REPLY
egordon99
Cream of the Crop
10,247 posts
Joined Feb 2008
Philly 'burbs
Mar 18, 2009 07:41 as a reply to trevstro's post |  #13

I shot my son on his "birthday" with my 85 and 30 primes (on my 40D) I didn't start to "flash" him until week #2.




LOG IN TO REPLY
sebr
Goldmember
sebr's Avatar
4,624 posts
Joined Jan 2007
Sweden/France
Mar 18, 2009 07:47 |  #14

I would intuitively go for a set of primes, like 24+85, because of the need to use natural light. However, newer cameras handle ISO noise rather and f/2.8 zooms will certainly work if you are willing to increasing the ISO.

Edit: Joe, I forgot to say that these shots are stunning !


Sebastien
5D mkIII ; 17-40L ; 24-105L ; 70-200L II ; 70-300L ; 35L ; Σ85/1.4 ; 135L ; 100macro ; Kenko 1.4x ; 2x mkIII ; 580EXII
M ; 22/2.0 ; EF adapter
Benron Tripod; ThinkTank, Lowepro and Crumpler bags; Fjällräven backpack

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

8,770 views & 0 likes for this thread
Best lens for newborn photos
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00138 for 7 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.03s
Latest registered member is zgxylhim
1160 guests, 543 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6106, that happened on Jun 09, 2016