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
Guest
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 13 Feb 2010 (Saturday) 21:43
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

whats the best lens for newborn close-up?

 
pattrick70
Junior Member
27 posts
Joined Jan 2010
Location: cape cod
     
Feb 13, 2010 21:43 |  #1

what would you all recommend for close ups of feet and toes and all that good stuff. I have a t1i and am using 50 1.4 but am looking for something better for the close shots. thanks for any advice


6D, 135L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
antitera
Member
Avatar
119 posts
Joined Nov 2008
     
Feb 13, 2010 21:47 |  #2

85mm f/1.2 L




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
joedlh
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,232 posts
Gallery: 31 photos
Likes: 377
Joined Dec 2007
Location: Long Island, NY, N. America, Sol III, Orion Spur, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Cluster, Laniakea.
     
Feb 13, 2010 21:52 |  #3

What's wrong with your 50? On your t1i, it has the field of view of an 80 on a 35 mm SLR. That's an ideal portrait lens. How close do you really want to go? Any closer and you'll need a macro. But I really don't think you need a macro on baby toes. Just close down the aperture of your 50 a little so you have more depth of field.


Joe
Gear: Kodak Instamatic, Polaroid Swinger. Oh you meant gear now. :rolleyes:
http://photo.joedlh.ne​t (external link)
Editing ok

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
drumsfield
Goldmember
Avatar
1,595 posts
Likes: 27
Joined Oct 2009
Location: Bethesda Md
     
Feb 13, 2010 21:53 |  #4

What's wrong with the 50mm 1.4?


Canon 5D MkIII | Olympus OM-D | Olympus E-P2 | 16-35L MKII | 24-70L MKII | 70-200L MKII | 85L MKII | EF 50mm 1.4 | EF 100mm 2.8 | 100-400mm L MKII | 20mm 1.7
Feedback and Full gear list
Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pattrick70
THREAD ­ STARTER
Junior Member
27 posts
Joined Jan 2010
Location: cape cod
     
Feb 13, 2010 22:03 |  #5

nothing wrong it works great. I have just seem some other photos of close ups of toes and hands and i dont seem to be able to focus that close.. maybe its just me? this is all pretty new to me


6D, 135L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tkbslc
Cream of the Crop
24,567 posts
Likes: 15
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Utah, USA
     
Feb 13, 2010 22:03 |  #6

joedlh wrote in post #9605132 (external link)
What's wrong with your 50? On your t1i, it has the field of view of an 80 on a 35 mm SLR. That's an ideal portrait lens. How close do you really want to go? Any closer and you'll need a macro. But I really don't think you need a macro on baby toes. Just close down the aperture of your 50 a little so you have more depth of field.

The 50mm f1.4 and f1.8 have a pretty poor max magnification level of .15x (about 1:7). So, no I don't think it is the case that to go any closer you will need a macro. Most of the standard zooms for aps-C (18-55, 17-50, 18-50, etc) have a 1:4-1:3 macro mag, which is roughly double that of the 50mm.

However, you have a lot of room to crop tighter with the newer cameras.


Taylor
Galleries: Flickr (external link)
60D | ELPH 330 | iPhone 5s

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KCMO ­ Al
Goldmember
Avatar
1,115 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Sep 2006
Location: Kansas City, MO
     
Feb 13, 2010 22:05 |  #7

Cheapest way to get closer is with extension tubes. Newborns are pretty still most of the time, so they'd work quite well.


Film: Leica M-4, Elan 7E, Rolleiflex 2.8f, Pentax 645 -- Digital: Canon Pro-1, EOS 5D Mk III
EOS Lenses: Sigma 24-70 f2.8 EX - Canon EF 17-40 f4.0L - Canon EF 24-105 f4.0L - Canon EF 35 f1.4L USM - Canon EF100-400 f4.5-5.6L IS USM - Canon EF100 f2.8 Macro - Other stuff: MR 14EX - 430EX - 580EXII - ST-E2 - TC1.4x - TC-80N3

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
Avatar
15,346 posts
Gallery: 39 photos
Likes: 456
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
     
Feb 13, 2010 22:06 |  #8

antitera wrote in post #9605109 (external link)
85mm f/1.2 L

Uh, no. MFD on the 85L is not too great.

A cheap option for the OP is the Canon EF 50 1:2.5 Compact Macro. Some other 'close focus' lenses that are not true macro lenses are the EF 135L and the EF 300/4L IS. The latter two are close to $1000 while the former is much more affordable.


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/ (external link)
I use a Canon 5DIII and a Sony A7rIII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
xarqi
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,435 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2005
Location: Aotearoa/New Zealand
     
Feb 13, 2010 22:12 |  #9

EF-S 60/2.8 macro




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tkbslc
Cream of the Crop
24,567 posts
Likes: 15
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Utah, USA
     
Feb 13, 2010 22:33 |  #10

I don't think you would need a real macro lens. You guys are grossly underestimating the size of a baby. 1:1 is for filling the frame with a ladybug. 1:2 would likely even be to much to fit a baby hand.
The OP's signature says "looking for a good zoom" and I think most of the good standard zooms focus close enough for newborns.

Here's what you can do with just the 18-55 kit lens at 1:3. Not quite 3" in the frame and that's my finger.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


This was with the Tamron 28-75 which can do 1:4 max, and I don't think this was quite at max.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


Taylor
Galleries: Flickr (external link)
60D | ELPH 330 | iPhone 5s

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
xarqi
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,435 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2005
Location: Aotearoa/New Zealand
     
Feb 13, 2010 22:37 |  #11

tkbslc wrote in post #9605311 (external link)
I don't think you would need a real macro lens. You guys are grossly underestimating the size of a baby. 1:1 is for filling the frame with a ladybug.

:shock:That'd be a one BIG ladybug!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tkbslc
Cream of the Crop
24,567 posts
Likes: 15
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Utah, USA
     
Feb 13, 2010 22:39 |  #12

xarqi wrote in post #9605334 (external link)
:shock:That'd be a one BIG ladybug!

What, you don't have elephant ladybugs in NZ? :)

Okay, got me there. But it would be one TINY baby foot, too. :p


Taylor
Galleries: Flickr (external link)
60D | ELPH 330 | iPhone 5s

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
nureality
Goldmember
3,611 posts
Joined Jan 2008
     
Feb 13, 2010 22:53 |  #13

I'm loving my Rokkor 58/1.2 for everything I try shooting with it. The surprisingly close MFD of about 18" is incredible.

Its not a lens for everyone tho. It takes a LOT of patience.

Maybe consider the Tamron 60mm f/2 1:1 Macro. Its insanely sharp, with just gorgeous bokeh. And at under $500 its a steal for what it is.


Alan "NuReality" Fronshtein
Gear List | PBase |  (external link)flickr (external link)
Lots of Fun, Lots of Laughs, Happy Trigger Finger!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DStanic
Cream of the Crop
6,148 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Canada
     
Feb 13, 2010 23:30 |  #14

Another option to consider would be a closeup filter, such as the 500d.

http://www.flickr.com/​groups/764373@N21/pool​/ (external link)


Sony A6000, 16-50PZ, 55-210, 35mm 1.8 OSS
Canon 60D, 30D
Tamron 28-75 2.8, Tamron 17-35, Sigma 50mm 1.4, Canon 85mm 1.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
antitera
Member
Avatar
119 posts
Joined Nov 2008
     
Feb 14, 2010 03:30 |  #15

JeffreyG wrote in post #9605195 (external link)
Uh, no. MFD on the 85L is not too great.

With a focal length of 85mm and a 1.6 multiplier, you don't need a "great" MFD. At .95m, the FOV would be about 25 x 17cm. I don't know how small these particular baby feet are or how much of the frame the OP wants to fill with feet, but this FOV would be sufficient in most scenarios. Besides, one can always slap on a few extension tubes to decrease the MFD (A set of extension tubes can be obtained for about $100.)

One thing nice about the 85L is its super shallow DOF. It can create a very dreamy-like effect, which I imagine would be desirable for this type of photograph.




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

7,649 views & 0 likes for this thread
whats the best lens for newborn close-up?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


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


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is abrahamf
983 guests, 431 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.