Baby coming soon...want to replace my 17-55mm kit lens!

Hi all,

After doing some searching through this forum, I wasn't able to find a direct answer to my question, so I thought I would see if I could get your opinion:

I have gotten "kitchen clearance" from my wife to replace the kit lens on our Rebel XTi with a new lens, and she's in agreement that we should be buying an L lens with an eye to the long term.

So, that's the good news. Bad news is, the more I research which lens to buy, the more confused I'm getting.

This lens is intended to be a "walkaround lens", with some heavy initial usage for shooting our new baby that's due to arrive in early July.

Up to this point, I've been thinking that the 24-105L would be the best bet. However, since a lot of the pictures of the baby are going to be inside, I'm wondering whether buying this lens will also mean that I'm using my flash a lot.

Is this something I should be concerned about? If so, what would you recommend as an alternative??

Any thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated!!!

Regards,
Greg

I too got my DSLR world because of anticipating the birth of my son, now 2 years old. So far I have taken about 20k pics of mostly him. (at least 50% because of the continuous shoot mode).

Anyway, based on my experience, I would suggest a wider and faster lens. The main reason is because your newborn will spend most time indoor in the first 6-9 months. I bought my 28-75 tammy and found it too long for indoor shooting. But the f2.8 was excellent. Now I have 17-55mm IS and I found myself taking a lot of interesting angles of my home that I was not able to take with the tamron (but EF-S so you might not consider it). I am not sure if 24 is wide enough for indoor home shooting.

If money is not an issue, I'd suggest 16-35L. It's my dream lens, and cover the perfect range for a 1.6 crop body. Even with my tammy, I rarely used any focal length beyond 50mm.

Depending on budget - 50 (f/1.8 or 1.4 or 1.2); Canon 17-55 f2.8; Tamron 17-50 f/2.8; etc... there are a lot of good and more importantly fast lenses out now.

Flash may upset mom but will often not go over well with the baby, in my experiences anyway, and can blow the "moment".

elguapo wrote in post #3287478
For a long-term walking around Canon L series lens, if I had $1,000 and a kitchen pass, I'd buy a Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 L .

Momma might get upset if you keep using the flash around the baby.

I second that. Plus you will be happy to have the 2.8 to get a nice bokeh for portraits.

RWE wrote in post #3287506
Depending on budget - 50 (f/1.8 or 1.4 or 1.2); Canon 17-55 f2.8; Tamron 17-50 f/2.8; etc... there are a lot of good and more importantly fast lenses out now.

Flash may upset mom but will often not go over well with the baby, in my experiences anyway, and can blow the "moment".

Regarding budget, I think in the $1000 to $1300 range is definitely workable...

I have had the 24-105 L IS for a few months now. I take a lot of family shots with the five kids we have. Since I already have the 70 -200 f/4L. I now wish I had gotten the 24-70L due to over all IQ, better bokeh and 2.8 for low light. The only reason I chose the 24-105 was the IS. If I were you I would get the 24-70 and use a tripod when ever possible.
Later you might think about the new 70-200 f/4L IS, again superb IQ. plus then your covered from 24- 200mm. Then all you will need is a ultra wide angle lens like the 17-40 l, 16-35L or maybe even the 10-22. With three lenses you would have all the focal lengths covered with excellent IQ and bokeh for your portraits. With the exception of the super teles. Those can come later when the kids playing sports.

If your really concerned with low light or flash when taking photos of the baby, its hard to beat the 50mm 1.4 or even the nifty 50 1.8 if you want to save 250 bucks. Some here will say you need 35mm with the 1.6 crop of the XTI.

Good luck....

la canon amateur wrote in post #3287551
I have had the 24-105 L IS for a few months now. I take a lot of family shots with the five kids we have. Since I already have the 70 -200 f/4L. I now wish I had gotten the 24-70L due to over all IQ, better bokeh and 2.8 for low light. The only reason I chose the 24-105 was the IS. If I were you I would get the 24-70 and use a tripod when ever possible.
Later you might think about the new 70-200 f/4L IS, again superb IQ. plus then your covered from 24- 200mm. Then all you will need is a ultra wide angle lens like the 17-40 l, 16-35L or maybe even the 10-22. With three lenses you would have all the focal lengths covered with excellent IQ and bokeh for your portraits. With the exception of the super teles. Those can come later when the kids playing sports.

If your really concerned with low light or flash when taking photos of the baby, its hard to beat the 50mm 1.4 or even the nifty 50 1.8 if you want to save 250 bucks. Some here will say you need 35mm with the 1.6 crop of the XTI.

Good luck....

Thanks for the feedback..and the ideas for longer term purchases. That's another important part of the equation here: what do I wind up buying later to expand the range of focal lengths.... your thoughts here are helpful in that regard as well, since I think I'd like to be able to get my wife prepared for future purchases...

For a full frame 24-70 f2.8L would be my choice.
For cropped body, the question is much muddier as there is no great option. 16-35mm f2.8L would be nice but very expensive and not long enough. Problem with 24-105 on a crop is that it's not wide enough for me. Plus I find f4 way too slow for my style/needs. F2.8 is generally the minimum for me with indoor shooting.

Personally, if you have a cropped, I'd get either a Canon 17-55 or a Tamron 17-50 and not worry too much about the long term of the lens as long as it serves your needs the best and you can use it to create the best images possible. Your skills and a photographic eye is a lot more important than a lens.

Boy this topic name threw me for a loop for a second... somebody was happy to get rid of their 17-55mm Canon(?!)...until I read 'kit lens' at the end and realized they really were happy to get rid of the 18-55 lens!

Wilt wrote in post #3287921
Boy this topic name threw me for a loop for a second... somebody was happy to get rid of their 17-55mm Canon(?!)...until I read 'kit lens' at the end and realized they really were happy to get rid of the 18-55 lens!

Hi Wilt,

Mea culpa on that one....can ya tell I'm already not getting enough sleep?

FWIW, There are a heck of a lot of indoor baby type shooting situations where an f/2.8 is not quite fast enough to stop blur. There are a few routes:

A. f/2 and faster primes and you can shoot away indoors. Very shallow DOF may be come a problem with too many shots where the nose tip and ears are soft.

B. f/4 and slower zooms with IS like the 24-105 and the 17-85. I think you may get motion blur.

C. f/2.8 and IS - Only the 17-55 works.

A lot of people have either an aversion to EF-S or they have an aversion to $1000 consumer build lenses. If this is you, then skip "C". Otherwise get the 17-55 as it will best fit the bill for what you want to do.

If you won't get the 17-55, then I'd go for 35 f/1.4 or f/2, 50 f/1.4 or f/1.8 and 85 f/1.8.

Or get a 5D and the 24-70 f/2.8 or the 24-105 f/4. You can use ISO 3200 to compensate for the lack of IS for the former or the f/4 of the latter. This path is the most pricey.

GregH wrote in post #3287549
Regarding budget, I think in the $1000 to $1300 range is definitely workable...

Cool! Then I would go with the Canon 17-55 or the 24-70 f2.8? But that is just me.

Sleep - I remember that!

I vote for 17-55 IS. Very versitile. I had the Tamron 17-50, images were very identical, but the IS in low light will help alot. You can get both, the Tamron 17-50 ($450) and the Canon 70-200 f/4L ($520)for under $1000. An awesome combo for the buck!

GregH wrote in post #3287997
Hi Wilt,

Mea culpa on that one....can ya tell I'm already not getting enough sleep?

Just wait for the little screamer!

my vote for the canon 17-55 f2.8 IS + canon 50 f1.8

when my sis's baby was born, i took the 50 f1.8 to the hospital and got some nice pictures of the baby without having to use flash.