What lens do you usually use for babies?

Hi, I'm a newcomer. I got my XSi with nice lenses recently after playing with an S5 IS for 2 years. Most of the pictures I have so far are about babies/toddlers because I happen to have some friends with new born babies.

I currently use a Canon 85mm f/1.8, Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8. The first one is great for headshot. And it can work in low-light situations (even though most of the cases in my friends' homes I need to use flash pointing at the ceiling). However, the problem with the 85mm sometimes the room is too small that I could find the right locations to take pictures.

When I switch to 17-50mm, I can have the whole baby in the picture and with some surrounding. Yet somehow it seems less appealing to have the surrounding.

I know that Canon 50mm f/1.4 or f/1.8 is good for the the whole body, too. But I don't have that lens to try out.

colormaniac wrote in post #7681585
I know that Canon 50mm f/1.4 or f/1.8 is good for the the whole body, too. But I don't have that lens to try out.

Why can't you try your 17-50mm at 50mm end to see if that will work or not for your case? I owuld think that 17-50mm on 1.6x crop body gives you a nice range for babies.

My 150-500 is pretty good for clubbing them with...

bobbyz wrote in post #7681877
Why can't you try your 17-50mm at 50mm end to see if that will work or not for your case? I owuld think that 17-50mm on 1.6x crop body gives you a nice range for babies.

Yet it cannot offer f/1.4 or f/1.8.

I did try 50mm f/2.8. Here, #5. Just uploaded.

I use the 50mm for babies and children loads and it is a great lens - fast, small and sharp. When I was using a 1.6x body before I got my latest camera I found I used the 35mm 1.4 a lot - particularly when shooting indoors where there wasn't much space.

colormaniac wrote in post #7681985
Yet it cannot offer f/1.4 or f/1.8.

I did try 50mm f/2.8. Here, #5. Just uploaded.

#7 here is what I usually want to have (though sometimes I overused it). That's why I'm thinking of a lens with f/1.4. F/1.2 of course is better but it's too expensive for me to afford.
Another reason is that I'd like to try low-light or natural light photography without flash.

Helen Bartlett wrote in post #7682875
I use the 50mm for babies and children loads and it is a great lens - fast, small and sharp. When I was using a 1.6x body before I got my latest camera I found I used the 35mm 1.4 a lot - particularly when shooting indoors where there wasn't much space.

I visited your blog. Very nice pictures. I need to learn more from you people.

colormaniac wrote in post #7681985
Yet it cannot offer f/1.4 or f/1.8.

I did try 50mm f/2.8. Here, #5. Just uploaded.

I agree but if you using flash, f1.8 vs f2.8 shouldn't matter much. With zoom you can see which focal lengths works for your case and buy a prime based on that.

im using a 50mm and 85mm on a 5d-- also once in a while ill throw in the 135mm-- next a 100mm macro

I've been using my 50 1.8, but have wanted a little more room on my crop sensor so recently purchased the 35 1.4. The 50 is a great lens though and cheap, I'd recommend it.

Another one for the 50mm. F/1.8 is magical. I have it on almost all my time in-door.

I would not recommend the 50 f1.8 since you are currently using the 85 f1.8 and would probably be disappointed in it's performance. I'm not saying the 50 1.8 is a bad lens (I still have mine) but going from the 85 would be a big step down IMO. I have heard good things about the Sigma 50 f1.4.

i recently switched from the Canon 50mm f/1.4 to a Sigma 30mm f/1.4... the 30mm is much sharper and focuses faster on my 30D... the focal length is much more suitable for indoors and newborns too...

30/85 combo works for me!