Best Lens for Children photography

<p>Hi folks,<br>

What is the best lens to take photos of toddlers and moving babies. With just borns it is easy - My 100MM macro works perfectly (f2.8). just born don't move much and the speed of focus is fast enough.<br>

This weekend i was taking photos of children at a birthday party (friends party and i was just a guest playing with my camera) and found that i like the separation of the 100 mm macro, but the speed of focus was not enough. I took out my 24-70 and found the focus OK but the separation wasn't there. I also felt that the 100 mm was just a tad too long for the space i had at the party.<br>

I was first thinking 85mm F1.2, but then realized that the focus speed is too slow. So my question on what is best?<br>

I also have a 70-200 zoom, but that just scares the kids and I can't run around the place as easily with the monster zoom :)</p>

85 f1.8 perhaps?

85 f1.8 perhaps?

85 f1.8 perhaps?

85 f1.8 perhaps?

85 f1.8 perhaps?

<p>I think John is suggesting the 85mm f/1.8. Good choice.</p>

<p>There is no "best". The 24-70 is a good choice. I normally use 35-135mm - any lens in that focal range.</p>

<p>I see that 85mm f1.8 is not a lens with IS. Do folks miss it?<br>

I also see an 85 mm F1.4 from Sigma - how is it's focus speed and quality of separation / Bokeh?</p>

<p>I think John REALLY likes the 85/1.8, and it is indeed a very good lens. Your 100 is an even better lens. However, you ask about the best lens for photographing kids once they become mobile. I contend that the best perspective for child photography is from down low or on the floor where they are. If a child is situated in one place and playing quietly, it is easy to stake out a good vantage point for photography with a prime lens. However, if the child is either walking or running around, you'll have to move as well, which means you'll have to stand, squat, sit, stand, walk, squat, sit, etc. -- more exercise than a Catholic mass. A zoom lens will eliminate about half of the calesthenics. (I think you already know this.)</p>

<p>Which zoom lens? You want shorter, lighter, smaller, and less conspicuous/white than a 70-200? How about the 24-105?</p>

<p>IS: IS is very useful for shooting slow-moving subjects. For a kid jumping around, you're going to have to use a faster shutter speed anyway, so IS might not be of as much use. That said, if you will be using your lens to photograph anything slow-moving in low light, the IS is a great thing to have.</p>

<p>For full frame primes: My vote is for a 35L + 50 f1.4 + 85 f/1.8. Eventually add a 135 f2 if funds permit. All of those lenses are sharp at or even before f2 giving the sensor more light to work and the ability to isolate the subject with shallow dof. Plus, all but the 50 f/1.4 can focus quite quickly.</p>

<p>For crop: A 24L + 50 f1.4 + 85 f1.8. The 135L will almost always be too tight except outdoors with lots of space.</p>

<p>As they get older, add in something ultra wide (14mm or 15mm) for close up action and fun shots.</p>

<p>But those are a lot of lenses to lug around. The 70-200 f2.8's will be a lot more versatile and focus very fast. Probably a better overall choice, especially for outdoors, unless you know for certain that you can always zoom with your feet with the 85, 100 and 135 primes.</p>

<p>Its fun spending other people's money :)</p>

<p>For indoor candid's I would also recommend the 24-70, or even the 24-105. For me, you want a lens with enough reach so you don't have to be right in the kids face to take the pic</p>

<p>However for outdoor pics, I can highly recommend the 70-200 - it gives you even more reach. I love true candids pics of kids where they are playing amongst themselves and forget the camera is there. You need a lens with reach to do that.</p>

<p>Here are some examples of that:<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tudorapmadoc/7584120552/<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tudorapmadoc/7598706756/<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tudorapmadoc/7582907496/<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tudorapmadoc/7582896828/</p>

 

<p>I actually have the 24-105 also but doesn't see much use since the separation is not much with the F4. I want more bokeh / Separation.<br>

Thanks for the insight on the IS. I brought the 100 macro L lens for the IS for the second use you mention.<br>

About the calisthenics - It is a good side benefit for me. Gives me some of the much needed exercise :)<br>

So not fixated on Zooms. I see three issues that affect my choice.<br>

1. Keep the separation that i want - so going shorter than 85 mm is not good (I tried 70mm and didnt like it even at f2.8.<br>

2. Focus fast. kids move and with the tight shots i want 100M L macro lens I was using was not fast enough in focus and I lost multiple shots while the focus was hunting.<br>

3. Keep the kids unaware of my actions<br>

Atleast the lens choice is not trading incompatible goals- I want bokeh and opening the lens will allow me faster shutter speeds which will stop movement also.<br>

Should I go longer to 135mm or shorter to 85mm? Which will be faster to focus? Which lens of the focal length to look at? While I prefer Canon, if there is a Value in off brand without affecting the parameters above I am willing to go out to B&H and play with them in the shop a bit before i rent and test it out.</p>

<p>I already have the 70-200 F2.8 IS L Mark II. While i use it in the playground, I dont like to use that indoors. I am strictly looking for Full frame options. Both my cameras are FF (5D and 5D Mark III)</p>

 

<p>The 85/1.8 is a great lens, and a steal @ ~$400 (I have one, and love it). However, the Sigma is better in nearly all respects. The IQ WO and near is better. It is (obviously) better at subject isolation, and it's bokeh is (IMPE) of better quality, while the transitional zone is also notably better (even at the same stops). I think the edges are a bit better w/ the 85/1.8, but for children's portraiture, that rarely comes into play.</p>

<p>In my (subjective) opinion, It's capable of very nearly the IQ granted by the 1.2L II (which I've only shot with a few times), but has significantly faster AF (granted, no doubt, by smaller element path) than the L. It's almost as fast as the EF 85/1.8. - Not a huge deal for portraiture, but for environmental children's portraiture, the 1.2L II (much less, gawd forbid, the mk I) is very nearly useless.</p>

<p>Of course the Sig is about a cool grand, twice (+) the cost of an 85/1.8, so one would expect it to out perform Canon's offering.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong> more exercise than a Catholic mass</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong><br /></strong>That's great! I love it!</p>

<p>I think versatility is the key. Having taken a lot of children's pics, I say for the most flexibility and quality, nothing beats the Canon 17-40 4.0 when you are shooting a group of children in motion. Now, if you want the lovely bokeh and fast USM, you can go with the Tamron 70-200 2.8 or, if you have the money, the Canon 70-200. But, since you are mostly doing portraits in a fixed setting, then the Canon 100 mm 2.0 is the best bang for the buck.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Not a huge deal for portraiture, but for environmental children's portraiture, the 1.2L II (much less, gawd forbid, the mk I) is very nearly useless.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So, Marcus, are you implying that "environmental children's portraiture" wasn't done before the advent of autofocus cameras? Imagine having to manually focus children! I shudder at the thought. ;-)</p>

<p>Sravan, I photograph my young kids alot, and use a range of lenses to do so. Indoors, I use the 35/1.4, 50/1.4 and 85/1.2 L II, as well as my newly acquired 24-70/2.8 L II. I had but was never entirely happy with the 24-105/4 L, particularly in lower light. Outdoors, I use my 70-200/4 L IS almost exclusively.</p>

<p>All of these lenses have their respective strengths and weaknesses, but probably the most versatile of them for child photography is the 24-70. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Not a huge deal for portraiture, but for environmental children's portraiture, the 1.2L II (much less, gawd forbid, the mk I) is very nearly useless.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So, Marcus, are you implying that "environmental children's portraiture" wasn't done before the advent of autofocus cameras? Imagine having to manually focus children! I shudder at the thought. ;-)</p>

<p>Sravan, I photograph my young kids alot, and use a range of lenses to do so. Indoors, I use the 35/1.4, 50/1.4 and 85/1.2 L II, as well as my newly acquired 24-70/2.8 L II. I had but was never entirely happy with the 24-105/4 L, particularly in lower light. Outdoors, I use my 70-200/4 L IS almost exclusively.</p>

<p>All of these lenses have their respective strengths and weaknesses, but probably the most versatile of them for child photography is the 24-70. </p>

<p>Sorry, double post.</p>

<p>I use a Tokina 50-135 2.8 most of the time for the kids, as it is long enough to get them from a distance and fast enough to use in room light. It is an amazing lens, but was discontinued. The closest thing available is the very good Sigma 50-150 f2.8. </p>

<p>I make my living as a kids photographer. I don't really know what works for others, but for me my main lenses are the 35L, 85L and 135L. I also use the 70-200 2.8 IS quite a bit as well as the 24-70. I shoot kids in action at f1.2 and 1.4 all day and don't find the focus issues that everyone seems to talk about with the 85L. It sure isn't "useless", that's for sure. When I do school shoots, sometimes that's all I use.<br>

The past year or so I have really been leaning on the 135L as well. I think it's the best deal in the Canon line-up. I could make due with the 35L-85L- 135L combo. <br>

I mainly use primes because I like seriously shallow depth of field, but again, that's just me. You can check out <a href="http://www.facebook.com/IanTaylorPhotography">some samples here</a>. </p>

<p>@Ian... can't argue with those pictures.</p>

<p>It'll sound like an odd choice but I found the 90mm tilt-shift lens useful for photographing a crawling baby. You can shift the lens downwards and then you don't have to squat down as low! For example here she was crawling under a chair but I didn't have to lie flat on my face to get the shot, as would have been necessary with an ordinary lens.</p>

<p>I'm just an amateur in this area (and most others) and I don't have much to contribute here. Still, I've found that the rather "long" minimum focus distance of the 85/1.8 is a limiting factor when photographing kids. Also, it doesn't focus a whole lot faster than Canon's 100 macro within non-macro distances.</p>