Best Baby photography Lens

<p>Dear photographers; I have been recently asking many questions but I have one important one in my mind!<br>

I am trying to get into baby photography. <br>

I am open to suggestions but I am considering the Sigma 35 1.4 ART or the Sigma 50 1.4 ART.<br>

In the past I had the Canon 35L and I loved it. It was a very practical focal range for a prime lens; however being a prime you had to really intend to use the lens to actually use it; because otherwise zooms will always be stuck to the camera given versatility. So I only used it when I needed the Bokeh/portrait focus. <br>

To me 35 was a more usable focal length than 50. But I never tried the 50 that much; but I found 35 also usable indoors.</p>

<p>But the lens repairer I was speaking to said the standard portrait focal length on full frame sensors is 50-85 mm; also the Sigma 50 1.4 ART seems to have slightly better Bokeh which is kind of expected?! and it's slightly cheaper. </p>

<p>By the way other lenses I have which would be good for Baby photos are: 24-70L; 70-200F4ISL; 135L and 100 Macro; but I do feel than one of the above 2 Sigma's would surely be the No.1 Baby photography Lens.<br>

The subject matter I want is a mix of baby photos; mother and baby; father and baby; both parents and baby.<br>

Any Thoughts? Suggestions?</p>

<p>Regards<br>

Pete</p>

 

<p>To photograph the baby itself you will want to get close, so check the minimum focus distance, and check the lens performs decently at that distance. Something like the 60mm f/2.8 macro or the old 50mm f/2.5 compact macro would be a decent choice, and gives you the option of photographing just one hand if you want to. I wouldn't want to wave around a big zoom lens like the 70-200 when photographing the baby up close.</p>

<p>Any of them would work. Given a choice I would pick the 24-70L (very versatile), or 50/1.4, but 35 would be nice too. I'd forget the 70-200s, 100mm and 135 for now.</p>

<p>Disclaimer: my only baby photography was of my own baby.<br>

I originally approached it with full "professional quality" SLRs and lenses.<br>

My practical wife just went out and bought a autofocus, zoom lens point and shoot. She put it, in a plastic bag, into the diaper kit.<br>

Unless you are taking these pictures for someone else in a studio type setting, I suggest that my wife was right: Keep it simple and available!</p>

<p>Based on your lens line-up, I'm guessing that your body is full-frame. If correct, then you've got everything that you need. Both the 24-70mm and 70-200mm are excellent lenses, with nice bokeh, reasonable minimum focus distances and great IQ. I wouldn't get a "specialty" lens.</p>

<p>If you insist AND your body is FF, then I'd go with the 50mm. For a crop sensor, I'd go with the 35mm.</p>

<p>If you get close and wide, then Digital Lens Optimization will automatically correct for geometric distortion, CA, vignetting, e5tc. at every focal length and every aperture. Generally, getting out wider than 50mm on a FF body, is not flattering for most humans. </p>

You already have what you need. If you want

to spend money for fun that's up to you.

Sounds like the only thing you're missing is

the baby. :)

<blockquote>

<p>The subject matter I want is a mix of baby photos; mother and baby; father and baby; both parents and baby.<br /> Any Thoughts? Suggestions?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Used on a "Full Frame" cameras: I would generally pack a kit comprising three lenses - a 24 to 70 F/2.8; fast 35mm Prime; fast 85 Prime (and maybe a fast 135 Prime which would be in preference to using a 70 to 200/2.8) for those tasks.</p>

<p>I have: EF 24 to 70 F/2.8L USM; EF35/1.4L USM; EF 85/1.8 USM (and also EF 135 F/2 USM and 70 to 200F/2.8L USM), I've no desire to change that lineup to Sigma nor replace any of those lenses with other Canon lenses of the same FL, but, everyone's reasons differ and you seem to like the Sigma ART Series, etc. </p>

<p>As others have said and I agree, you have a truck load of lenses for the task already. With your existing kit I'd most likely use the 24 to 70 and the 135/2.</p>

<p>I would rather work with two cameras and fewer lenses, so, typically I would use my 24 to 70 and my 85 or 135) and carry my 35 in my pocket: but a third camera can make it easier and I have done that, too. So if you do not have two MAIN WORKING camera bodies, I suggest that you consider that avenue to spend your money on, before another lens.</p>

<p>As for my suggestion for <em>a new lens(es) </em>as an addition to your existing kit: I'd add a fast 35 first - and then a fast 85 second - that's also assuming that you are running "Full Frame" cameras.</p>

<p>The main logic for that suggestion being, that a fast 35 will usually provide much more scope for the wide shot to incorporate shallow DoF when compared to the 24 to 70/2.8 set at 35mm, than a fast 85 when it is compared to the 24 to 70 set at 70mm.</p>

<p>Stated another way: when comparing the fast maximum apertures F/2.8 - AND - F/1.4~F/2, the extra one or two stops of aperture speed is <em><strong>usually</strong></em> more useful to a Portrait Photographer at the Wide Focal Lengths than at the Telephoto Focal Lengths. This is somewhat dependent upon one's techniques and styles: but I think that's a reasonable generalization for you to consider. </p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>Thanks guys for the suggestions;<br>

Yes it's all on a full frame camera and yes the baby photography is not serious like studio or business; it would be for my family and friends but I desire top quality :)<br>

These are all my lenses now: 17-40L; 24-105L; 24-70L; 135L; 100 macro; 70-200 F4IS L<br>

Since my subject matter changed in the last few years and I don't shoot nature or sports anymore and it's about people photography/street/portraits/family photos...<br>

I think out of my lenses the most suited now to Baby photos from all your suggestions seems the 24-70 F2.8L and the 135L +/- some suggested 70-200 others didn't<br>

It does make sense that if I consider getting a new lens or sell and buy; to get either a 35 1.4 or 50 1.4; although I note some of you mentioned I may not really need it on top of the 24-70L.<br>

As for the choice between 35 and 50 for baby photography; looks like the suggestions are 50:50 between them two <br>

I was hoping there would be an obvious focal length that's clearly better for FF for that purpose</p>

 

<p>"But the lens repairer I was speaking to said the standard portrait focal length on full frame sensors is 50-85 mm."<br>

The lens repairer is correct: except that your 100mm macro falls in the same category and probably would be very good with a baby. A fast 50mm will be much smaller than your zoom and easier to hand hold at slow shutter speeds. With babies one must work fast.</p>

<p>I photograph kids for a living and use the 35 ART for all my jobs, but when it comes to babies, which I don't do a lot, I use the 24-70. (It's the only time I use that lens actually.) Mainly for the close focus ability. You can get in really tight for all the little hand/foot photos etc. Cliché but they work and parents love them. A 50 or 85 would also work. I don't find the 35 useful for babies as it catches too much of the surroundings and that's the only time I'm not really going for that. YMMV.</p>

<p><img src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3564/3286793903_6046994882_m.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>I only shoot babies for friends and family, but I don't think you need to buy anything at all. When I expect to shoot babies, I use a FF camera, and I pack a 24-105, a 70-200 (both f/4), a flash, a diffuser, and a Demb Flip-it. I used to pack my 100mm macro to have an f/2.8 lens, but in practice, I find I generally want the DOF of f/4-f/5. I just looked through a bunch of recent ones, and I didn't find any shot at less than 90mm, although there must be some. It's a matter of taste, but I don't like wide-angle shots of babies' faces.</p>

<p>The big variable in my very limited experience is whether the parents are comfortable with bounce flash. If not, then low light is likely to be an issue. That's one place where a faster lens would help, but the extremely narrow DOF can be a pain when shooting close-ups of faces. I find that my camera (a5DIII) handles low light quite well, as long as I expose to the right. A lot of my recent baby photos were shot at ISO 3200. The payoff is that if you are lucky, you can get some nice, gentle lighting at good angles if you skip the flash.</p>