Lens selection for toddler photography

I am looking for a new lens for photographing my 2 1/2 year old. Currently, I use a T3i with a 50 1.4. The lenses is great but I want some more flexibility in distance from the subject and an improved background blur that a longer focal length will provide. My daughter is quick and it foot zoom is getting harder and harder. A nice bokeh is important because I am not always shooting in the prettiest location.

So, I am looking for a quality zoom lens. My price point is $1500 or lower. I am looking to shoot indoors and out. Also, I do not plan on upgrading from a cropped sensor anytime soon but just in case my discretionary income increases, I would like to stay away from EF-S lenses for future upgrade possibilities.

Ideally, I would buy the 70-200 2.8L II IS but it is too far out of my price range.

The following lenses are what I have narrowed my selection down to but I am open to any other suggestions:
70-200 2.8L
70-200 4.0L IS
24-105 4.0L

Any thoughts on these lenses or recommendations of others?

Thanks everybody for your help.

jpburke wrote in post #14615644
I am looking for a new lens for photographing my 2 1/2 year old. Currently, I use a T3i with a 50 1.4. The lenses is great but I want some more flexibility in distance from the subject and an improved background blur that a longer focal length will provide. My daughter is quick and it foot zoom is getting harder and harder. A nice bokeh is important because I am not always shooting in the prettiest location.

So, I am looking for a quality zoom lens. My price point is $1500 or lower. I am looking to shoot indoors and out. Also, I do not plan on upgrading from a cropped sensor anytime soon but just in case my discretionary income increases, I would like to stay away from EF-S lenses for future upgrade possibilities.

Ideally, I would buy the 70-200 2.8L II IS but it is too far out of my price range.

The following lenses are what I have narrowed my selection down to but I am open to any other suggestions:
70-200 2.8L
70-200 4.0L IS
24-105 4.0L

Any thoughts on these lenses or recommendations of others?

Thanks everybody for your help.

I am in a similar situation and posted yesterday asking about this. I have a 50D with a 70-300, but find 70 too long a lot of the time. I have also been looking at the 24-105, but not sure the how much blur you are going to get from it.

I know you are saying you wanted to avoid EF-S, but it sounds like you are saying there is a slim chance of you upgrading anytime soon so why limit yourself to the more expensive choices.

Anyway my point is you should look at the Sigma 50-150 F2.8 - it is what I am looking at for similar use, it is close to the FOV of the 70-200 on a FF and is getting great reviews from what I have seen.

Do you have a flash? i had both 70-200 2.8's (IS and non-IS) and my IS copy wide open wasn't great. I've never had the 70-200 f4 but from everything I read it is an excellent lens, great value for the money.

rick_reno wrote in post #14615677
Do you have a flash? i had both 70-200 2.8's (IS and non-IS) and my IS copy wide open wasn't great. I've never had the 70-200 f4 but from everything I read it is an excellent lens, great value for the money.

Yes I don. I have a 430 ex ii.

The Sigma 70-200mm OS HSM is the budget alternative to the Canon 70-200mm L IS USM II. I'm satisfied with mine. I'm sure the Canon is better. But since I don't use telephoto often, I'd rather not tie up more money in this focal length.

You could also consider one or more primes like Canon 85mm f1.8, Canon 135mm L f2.0, or Canon 200mm L f2.8

Longy wrote in post #14615664
I am in a similar situation and posted yesterday asking about this. I have a 50D with a 70-300, but find 70 too long a lot of the time. I have also been looking at the 24-105, but not sure the how much blur you are going to get from it.

I know you are saying you wanted to avoid EF-S, but it sounds like you are saying there is a slim chance of you upgrading anytime soon so why limit yourself to the more expensive choices.

Anyway my point is you should look at the Sigma 50-150 F2.8 - it is what I am looking at for similar use, it is close to the FOV of the 70-200 on a FF and is getting great reviews from what I have seen.

I understand what you are saying. The sigma looks nice but I am a little hung up on the EF-S mount. I know camera bodies are essentially throwaways but lenses should last a long time. It may just be me, but I have a tough time spending $1100 on a lens that will not fit on a full frame in case I upgrade. I mean, there is always the persistent rumor of canon one day releasing a cheaper full frame body.

jpburke wrote in post #14615720
It may just be me, but I have a tough time spending $1100 on a lens that will not fit on a full frame in case I upgrade. I mean, there is always the persistent rumor of canon one day releasing a cheaper full frame body.

Then get the Sigma 70-200 OS

At the shorter focal lengths, you can use the 24-105L in better lighting indoors. You may find that the F4 is limiting when light levels drop, as at night.
The 70-210 is a long heavy lens, and may be a bit too long indoors, even at the short end.
I am still likely to use the 35f2 for indoor, low light photography. The wider field of view compared to the 50 gives you more room to maneuver.
I'd like to see a 24-70 F2 zoom, but I don't like the weight of the current 24-70, and an F2 version isn't practical.
You could try a longer prime outside, like the 85f1.8 and a shorter one inside, like a 35.

It's not a zoom, but I have used the 85mm f/1.8 to photograph my kids from birth to 3 years old quite a bit. It's an outstanding value at $350ish. I'm personally never thrilled with the outcome with flash unless it's off camera, and that's harder than foot zoom with kids that are changing position constantly. So I stick to fast primes and just take what I can get. I take most of my pictures of them once they've settled into an activity. Typically coloring or puzzles. That way I can frame and set up my shots a bit more and work with the light in the room.

For outdoors, 135mm f2 unless you want 70-200mm zooms.

Thanks for all of your input. So, I am realizing now that I am going to need a fast lens for shooting inside, which I already have in my 50 1.4. I can always add another prime. An 85 sounds interesting because it feels like I am always having to get close to my daughter with my 50.

Let's now consider a zoom that will primarily be used outside. Is f/4 enough or should I go with an f/2.8? Do IS seem like a necessity?

I just reread the posts. A 35mm for inside and an 85mm for outside sounds intersting too.I love the sharpness of primes but I am also excited about having a long zoom.

jpburke wrote in post #14615976
Thanks for all of your input. So, I am realizing now that I am going to need a fast lens for shooting inside, which I already have in my 50 1.4. I can always add another prime. An 85 sounds interesting because it feels like I am always having to get close to my daughter with my 50.

Let's now consider a zoom that will primarily be used outside. Is f/4 enough or should I go with an f/2.8? Do IS seem like a necessity?

Do you have any other lenses than your 50/1.4? I would get the 24-105 of the 3 you listed in the OP if you can't go wider than 50. If you have a 18-55 or some standard zoom, then I would go with the 70-200/4 IS, which I have no problems with outside but I don't shoot at night with it much.

Another option would be to get the Sigma 17-50/2.8 and a 85/1.8 for about the same price as the lenses you listed in the OP. Or a sigma 30/1.4 and the 85/1.8 if you like primes.

I positively love my 70-200 f/4 IS outdoors. If you zoom to 200 and shoot head shots with a background in the distance, you can still get good DOF/blurred backgrounds. And it's very sharp with perhaps the best color of any of my leses. If you bought used, your $1500 would easily cover both the 70-200 and the 85. New you would be a bit over I think.

I have a kit 18-55 with I'd be more than happy to replace.