Newborn Portrait Lens

schris wrote in post #14960037
They can't sit up, which means most pictures have to be taken from above unless someone's holding the kid up for the camera.

It's really easy to have the infant in a tiltable crib or cradle so you don't need to be directly overhead. Besides, there are much better setups than pointing the camera straight into the infant's face.

I see no need to buy a lens at this time. There is no way to express the importance of light when photographing an infant. Practice, practice practice with your current flash.

Saving for a 70-200 is a great plan. The 70-200 is my favorite lens when photographing children playing outside. I use f/2.8 to blur distracting background much more than for more light. I seldom need IS because the shutter speed is kept fast enough to stop motion. Small children are really quick and are seldom, if ever, still.

BTW: SkipD gives great advice.

SkipD wrote in post #14960161
It's really easy to have the infant in a tiltable crib or cradle so you don't need to be directly overhead. Besides, there are much better setups than pointing the camera straight into the infant's face.

Fair point - most of the pictures I took in her first few days of life were essentially just that: camera in baby's face. I was too in love to notice they were pretty much all the same picture

Keyan wrote in post #14959433
You really have what you need. A flash and a fast prime. Learn how to bounce the flash and/or pick up the Stofen Omni-bounce diffuser for it.

If you really want a lens, what is your budget?

Yes, I use a 50L with bounced flash...

russ925 wrote in post #14959343
I am looking to do some pictures of my newborn in a few weeks and was looking into gettting a quality lens.

Any recommendations.

Thank you

I agree with the rest, you already have the equipment for a good baby portrait (50mm 1.8 and flash) Sure you could spend $1,000 + and get a 50L or 35L, etc. but you're going to need extra cash with a baby not to mention all the expenses down the road.
Go to the newborn /baby thread in the people section here and read up on portrait lighting.

schris wrote in post #14960037
As someone who just had a baby, I have to agree that 50mm on crop is a little awkward sometimes for baby pics. They can't sit up, which means most pictures have to be taken from above unless someone's holding the kid up for the camera. I've gotten much better shots from my 28mm lens than from my 50mm. To the OP: good luck with the 35L - be super careful with it! - and congrats on the baby.

Get one of these bouncer's:

http://www.toysrus.com …dex.jsp?product​Id=3924267

Babies love the vibrating chair and the chair sits them up some what for better posing.

FEChariot wrote in post #14960429
Get one of these bouncer's:

http://www.toysrus.com …dex.jsp?product​Id=3924267

Babies love the vibrating chair and the chair sits them up some what for better posing.

Ha, yes - she spends a lot of time in her bouncy chair already... I got sick of seeing it in photos. She's a little more mobile and a little less fragile now, so we can get much bigger variety in photos.

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

Talking from experience with my own baby, you might want to consider the 17-55 IS, I like it very much because it does allows you to get different perspectives now, and keep up with her once she start moving around (primes are not very conducive to do that). I find that the 2.8 on crop with a flash is more than enough for most cases. If you want a prime, I would say that a macro 60 or one of the 100 will probably be a good way to go, mine is used a lot outside as a portrait lens, and still serves double duty when you need a macro. My two cents.....

watt100 wrote in post #14960246
...Sure you could spend $1,000 + and get a 50L or 35L, etc. but you're going to need extra cash with a baby not to mention all the expenses down the road...

A baby can help you justify the cost of any camera equipment with your wife - take advantage of the rare moment, and invest in some good gear

I bought the 17-55 EF-S IS USM f/2.8 to take pictures of our newborn grandkids and it works great in low light conditions.

Rick

I used my 50mm on my ff, it was perfect. so a 30-35mm on your crop would be good but i think the 50mm you got will also do it

here is one of the pictures i did take :

HERE

if you MUST buy a lens have a look at the EF-S 60
http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …F_S_60mm_f_2_8_​Macro.html

don't let the "macro" fool you, it's a great potrait lens plus you'll need the "macro" for nice tight shots of little hands and feet (picture that)

one sample review
http://www.lenstip.com …est=obiektywu&t​est_ob=178

what's possible samples from this forum (i don't think i've seen any baby photos mostly macros...lol)
https://photography-on-the.net …=243042&highlig​ht=ef-s+60

Samyang 35mm 1.4

I would get a longer lens than a 28mm or 35mm. You wan't to give the child some room so you don't have the camera in their face. I would suggest a focal length of 50mm to 100mm. The Canon 100mm 2.8 macro is great for extreme close up shots of that beautiful baby skin. The previously mentioned 60mm 2.8 macro is another excellent suggestion.

i'd look at the 100mm macro...get some of those tiny hands and feet close up...you could easily survive without it...but it's what i'd recommend for your situation...