New Lens for New Baby, Can't Decide

Been looking at the options on B and H and I'm really leaning towards the Canon 35 f/2 - http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …2_Wide_Angle_EF​_35mm.html

Someone had mentioned 50 being too tight indoors and I started thinking back to most of my indoor shots and looking through them and i'm not at 50 all that often. I really think 35 is the way to go.
I'm planning on going through a good amount of my pics and writing down all the focal lengths of the shot and avg. them out to see where I'm at.

I think this yr get a prime and next yr get the 2.8 variable zoom. The Canon 35 f/2 right now is $309 which means i really don't have to shell out any of my own cash, which will be nice. Also kinda want the new xbox one hehe and this makes it easier to tell the wife when both show up at the door lol.

We are gonna be with some friends coming up for a family party and they have a new born. I plan on taking my 18-55 and putting it at 35 and 50 and leave it there and take a bunch of shots to try and get a feel for those to focal lengths. I'm hoping that will give me a better idea too of what i might like for a prime.

Thanks for all the input, i'll keep you updated as to what i finally decide on getting. Like most of you i've been spending hours looking this stuff up.

instead of writing things down you can download exposure plot:
http://www.vandel.nl/e​xposureplot.html

I have the Canon 35mm f2. I love this focal length. 28mm was a little too wide and 50mm was too tight. the Canon 35mm is just right. I should also mention that I use a FF camera though. 6D. The only thing i regret is not getting the USM IS version. I tried to go cheap and get the non IS version. While the version I got is a very good lens, it seems to take a little time finding the subject to focus on and while it's searching, it's very loud. I'm sure you'll be taking pics of the baby while he/she is sleeping and you wouldn't want to wake the baby with a loud lens. Congrats!!

Randy

DreDaze, wow thank you for that link! Such a great little program that provides quick and easy analysis of your pics.

My youngest was born in August. Have been using a 35mm prime to take most of his photos. Great focal length in general for capturing every day moments. Widish perspective brings background elements into the frame and brings context to photos, while the large aperture isolates the subject well. Extremely versatile as well. The Sigma 30 should offer a similar FOV on your camera.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …s/carloalcala/9​648585051/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/carloalcala/11​595516833/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/carloalcala/11​596252436/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/carloalcala/11​595540024/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/carloalcala/11​596673565/

The older the baby the wider or the longer the lens?

great shots mystik!

the more i see from this lens and read, the more i'm convinced this is what i want to get

trossite wrote in post #16557190
Currently I have a Canon T2i with the EF-s 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS kit lens and according to the serial number it's the 2010 model. I think this is the 1st series and not the II. For awhile i've been looking to upgrade it to the Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM.

I really like the idea of having a constant f/2.8 and always said if we have a kid that would be my excuse to buy it. Well come end of April we will have a new baby in our lives. After looking around I also noticed the Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM. I'm kinda torn between the two, but really leaning towards the 17-50 more since it has the constant 2.8 and right now i think that's more important to me than the extra reach. Although both lenses would be faster than the current kit lens at the long end, would it be more benificial to have the f/2.8 to go 2 stops instead of just the one.

I know a lot will say get a fast prime something with f/1.8, but i'm not sure if i'm ready for a prime, i really like having that zoom capability. I know when the kid is a new born having a prime wouldn't be bad to use, but i'm thinking more in the future as well when it starts moving around. I like that ability to be able to change distances quickly.

I do have a Yongnuo 565EX flash for shooting indoors so that will also help with not having something faster than f/2.8. For outdoor shooting at a park or where ever i have Tamron 70-300.
My budget for this is about $600, if it was up to the wife it'd be half that, but I told her that's not gonna happen hehe. Would love to hear your thoughts / opinions.

I bought a Canon 17-55 f 2.8 refurb from Canon Usa for $575 with free shipping about a month ago. Its been hovering about $700 for the refurb since then when they have it in stock.

17-50 is perfect for kids. If that was your first choice, go with it.

I agree with some of the others, 17-50 2.8 is a good "walk around" lens on a crop but indoors with poor lighting something like the Sigma 30mm 1.4 is better

and shooting at f1.4 is fun

60D
Sigma 30mm 1.4 (non-art)
f1.4

My advice would be to focus on having these items in order for shooting kids:

Fast (f/2.8) zoom from wide to short telephoto. One of the 17-50 kind of lenses is good.
A Speedlight flash, or 3rd party E-TTL unit with swivel and tilt.
A set of color gels for the flash to blend light.

You should be able to cover just about anything with that. From there if you like working with posed or even unposed but set-up photo work then you might want to move into more lights, remotes and light modifiers. Overall this direction will be less spontaneous but will make for the best pictures overall.

But the more common route from there would be to add one or two fast primes at carefully selected lengths. I like 24mm and 50mm on FF, but since there is nothing so wide on 1.6X I would instead go with 30mm and either a 50 or 85.

I encourage people (and myself when I'm getting lazy) to try and think of the very fast primes as a solution for too much DOF rather than a solution for not enough light. So often, low light is also ugly light. When your only tool is a hammer (or a fast prime) then every problem looks like a nail (or a place where fast aperture solves low light).

I have 2 kids in diapers and a 17-50/2.8 OS. It's great a vast majority of the time, but once in a while I definitely wouldn't mind a ~35/1.4 to complement it (mostly for the DoF capabilities).

I always shoot available light!

And my hotshoe flash is always available.

Bouncing a camera mounted hotshoe flash off the ceiling and modifying it with a Joe Demb Flash Diffuser Pro provides excellent lighting.

Mounting the flash on a Stroboframe Camera Flip Bracket increases that excellent quality a couple of notches...

IMO an f/2.8 constant aperture zoom lens is far better for flash photography than a variable and slower aperture lens...

In my opinion...

First off, I would go with a prime or two. When I shoot newborns, I don"t want to be sticking a big lens in their face. It looks menacing. For my style of baby pictures, I feel that you should get close up and get their faces pretty big in the frame. For this I use a 50 1.4. If I want to do a full body shot, I go with a 28 1.8. A 35 might be good also.
I also use primes for baby pics because I like to shoot at wide aperatures with them. It just gives the images a more intimate feel. For what your budget is, I would go with two primes, a 50 and something wider.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/shogun613/10656​246516/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/shogun613/10656​287034/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/shogun613/10913​765505/