Indoor Newborn: 24-70 2.8L or 50 1.2L

<p>I'm a professional wedding photographer. I use a couple of Canon 5D Mark III. We have our first child expected soon! :) Tons of new research and gear, I love it all. But, I'm really struggling on my main lens. For formal newborn shoots, I plan on setting up indoor natural light portraits for the little guy. I already have the 24-70 2.8L, and am reading a ton in a Newborn Photography book I bought about the 50mm 1.2L. Since I already have the 24-70, is the 50 1.2 worth it? 2.5X more stops is nice, of course, but would I even be shooting below 2.8? Cause if not, it's not worth it. Any other newborn photographers out there? Do you shoot wider than 2.8?</p>

<p>Congrats. If you have another lens at 50mm, I'd try one of those before laying out bucks on the 1.2. Shooting at 1.8 or 1.4 can be quite useful, and they're both reasonably priced and sized. (I use Nikon but I think similar enough for purposes of this discussion). Whether the difference in price is worth it for your uses / specific character of that lens is hard to say.</p>

Congratulations! As a professional photography you understand the benefits and challenges of using such a fast lens, so there is no reason to repeat them. Before I would spend so much on what is a specialty lens, I think it would make sense to rent it and compare the images to your standard (f1.4 or f1.8) 50mm, which I assume you already have. Perhaps also rent the Sigma 50 F1.4 and a Canon 85 f1.8, which may be reasonable and less expensive alternatives to the 50MM L. Best of luck with the birth of your child.

<p>Thank you both for the notes and the congrats :) We are SO excited!<br>

Despite my wedding work, I actually do not own a 50mm yet (I know, I know). My thought is that if a fast 50 is better for natural light newborn photography, I can get the 50 1.2L and also use it at weddings (not sure how yet tho, I love my zooms). My greatest hesitation is this comparison tool showing the 50 1.2L vs the 24-70 2.8L:<br />http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=403&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=787&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0<br>

The 24-70 looks immensely sharper than the 50 1.2? Even if you change the aperture to 2.8 on both lenses, the 24-70 still looks sharper? But I've heard so many good things about it?</p>

<p>I haven't used either lens (as noted, on different systems) but I think the approach to comparison should be different. If you're happy with your zoom (results-wise) and never need/want to use a wider aperture than 2.8 and it won't help you focus in poor light and smaller size isn't a benefit, don't get the 50mm.<br>

Others can comment on the 1.2,but generally the super-speed lenses like this make some trade-offs to be able to produce acceptable images wide open (to get images that couldn't be obtained otherwise). So for image quality, you may (probably would) find the 1.8 or 1.4 just as good for your uses as the 1.2 - and smaller and cheaper too. (And other options like Sigma too...)<br>

Out of curiosity, the sources you read that recommended the 1.2, what are the specific reasons they suggest that lens? Tiny depth of field, 'character'?<br>

The newer 50mm 1.8 (STM?) is small, inexpensive and reportedly good images. I honestly think you can't go wrong with picking that up to keep in your bag and to try it. If it turns out you like the focal length and using a non-zoom, you can always move up to a faster lens later. (Not that there's anything wrong with the other suggestions mentioned here either, but the 'standard' is almost a no-brainer.)</p>

<p>Congrats on the upcoming arrival!<br>

I photograph kids for a living, but don't do a lot of newborn or infant work, but when I do I use the 24-70 for most of it.<br>

The best thing for me about the 24-70 is the 20mm minimum focusing distance. I find I shoot some <a href="https://www.facebook.com/IanTaylorPhotography/photos/a.222396367822359.55989.171846589544004/499095743485752/?type=3&src=https%3A%2F%2Ffbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net%2Fhphotos-ak-xap1%2Fv%2Ft1.0-9%2F598758_499095743485752_685741988_n.jpg%3Foh%3D6ea4472467a1f33b0c2cb134b9c76d8e%26oe%3D5632080E%26__gda__%3D1445656614_3c2ee5f724fc31a43c558218bf5894f0&size=625%2C632&fbid=499095743485752">cliche</a> close up shots of infants when I do those jobs, and this lens is perfect. And if they give you a quick moment, you can wide and tight in an instant.<br>

Once kids are up on their hind legs, I never use the 24-70, I go with the 35-85-135 combo. But if only one lens for the first year, the 24-70 is a no brainer for me.</p>

<p>Congratulations on the baby!<br /><br />I photograph newborns with a 24-70, plus a 55 3.5 macro lens when I want extreme closeups of tiny hands or toes.<br /><br />IMHO, can't see much use for the 50 1.2. When they are truly newborns, babies are resonably still. But within a couple of months they start to move. And at that point -- and until they get old enough to sit still when you tell them to -- it's a challenge to keep them in focus, so you need to stop down to get depth of field.</p>

<p>I'm a nikon guy but if you are shooting full frame, wedding photographers Denis Reggie and Joe Bussink turned me on to the 85, in nikon 1.4 Canon 1.2 they use. It is one of two lenses that I reach for if I have a choice, the other being the 135 2.0 dc. My 50, a Sigma 1.4. sweet bokeh, but it's kind of a ho hum length to me. No compression or expanded perspective, but great bokeh. I use it when jammed in close quarters and want bokeh. If you are a wedding photographer, take a look at Denis and Joes work and consider it. Like Ian, my 50mm spacing between lenses is the 35, 85 and 135. Could do 85% of my work with those if don't need the rapid adjustment of a zoom. At weddings, my 24-70 is on one body nearly all the time. If I upgrade to a d810 with 36 mp, I can crop in half and still have 18 mp and can save lugging the beast, the 70-200 and just crop the 135. My recommendation, first fixed an 85. A step back from a fifty and wonderful bokeh and compression. </p>

<p>Thank you all for your responses, and thanks for the congratulations :)<br>

The newborn photography book I've been reading, would definitely recommend it, is on Amazon called "Natural Newborn Baby Photography". Being able to search the text using Kindle, I'm able to find the captions of every single photo sample the author included in the book. 99% of her photos were taken with her 50mm lens at f 1.8. And her photos are amazing. Not saying you can't get the same quality at other apertures, but I am saying she knows what she's doing. This motivated me to get a prime with an aperture larger than 2.8 (either of my zooms). <br>

Thanks Greg for your mention of the Canon 50mm STM - I hadn't even seen that one yet. Doing some reviews and lots of research, it came out just a month ago (May 2015), and at the same price point ($125) has a lot of new upgrades, including quieter AF, 7-blade aperture vs 5, potentially slightly sharper images than the 1.8II, metal mount vs. plastic, etc. So, I got that one! I'm excited for it. <br>

My only worry, though, is that, especially because this is my child, and our first child, and I don't want to screw things up, let alone the pictures since that's my thing, would I be "ruining" my newborn photos using the Canon 50mm 1.8 STM vs. if I paid more for the Canon 50mm 1.2L? Would the pictures come out significantly different (worse)?</p>

<p>It may be that what will matter the most, particularly as you look back in the future and as your child looks back at these, will be the expressions and moments you catch, as well as the sense of the surroundings and the era. Getting the lens that suits your purposes is important and it's good that you're pursuing this line of thought. Just do as much thinking about all the other elements that will make these memorable photos. I have my own favorite baby pictures, both of myself and of my nieces and nephews and cousins, etc. I don't even think about the actual quality of those photos much when they pop into my head or I browse through the albums. I think about what I learn from them, I wax nostalgic for the times when they were taken, I check out details of furniture design from that era, clothing that relatives next to the baby might have been wearing. Sometimes, to be honest, the rougher photos, those we might consider lacking in quality, are actually better because of their technical flaws and the kind of spontaneity and fragility that represents. Honestly, not trying to be a naysayer in any way and you should absolutely concentrate on and engage these photos in the most comfortable way you can. We are all at risk, sometimes, of developing tunnel vision and missing the bigger picture. So this is really just a friendly reminder, which may not be at all necessary since obviously this is just your concern for this particular thread and you may well have a well-balanced approach to the making of these pictures.</p>

<p>Fred - that's an excellent, excellent point, and extremely well written. You're right - quality of gear is important, but what's more important, and sometimes my extreme self-critical-ness of my photos get's in the way, are the moments, the people, the memories. <br>

Thank you for the friendly reminder, honestly. That is much needed, especially for me, from time to time. </p>

<p>Ken, thanks so much for the nice and receptive response. </p>

<p>I agree with Ian. He's got lots of experience with kids, and it parallels what I have done, even though it's much less rare than he does it. I can't see the value of 1.2 in these situations.</p>

<p>Like you I've also earned my main photography income from Weddings and Portraiture.</p>

<p>I've photographed my two children as 'environmental portraiture' just after the birth and then, also more formal Portraiture (in Available Light).</p>

<p>You are only asking about the latter, the more formal portraiture which I assume will occur in a controlled situation?</p>

<p>In this case I would use your 24 to 70/2.8 zoom, especially considering that you have a 5DMkIII and the quality, high end ISO that camera provides to you.</p>

<p>I have used, but do not own a 50/1.0L. The extra stops of Lens Speed are not useful for the task that you describe, nor is the fact that is a Prime Lens, that lacks the flexibility of a zoom. I cannot envisage how the 50/1.2L would be better in either respect.</p>

<p>I also defer to Ian, being more generally experienced in the field of Child Portraiture, and also note that he uses a SET of Prime Lenses, not just one Prime lens, when he is Photographing kids "up on their <strong><em>hind legs</em></strong>" (that made me laugh). So again I think that the flexibility of a zoom would far outweigh any advantage (and disadvantage) of a fast Prime for a controlled Portrait Shoot.</p>

<p>All that said, for me Fred's comments resonated: capturing moments to be cherished were absolutely essential, even if those moments were captured a tad substandard to my general zeal for technical quality in my photography: so, in my situation I <em>went to the births</em> of my two children with one camera (135 format SLR) and fast 35mm lens mounted on it.</p>

<p>If I had a child being born tomorrow, I would use my 5DMkII and my 35/1.4 at the birth for its weight size and the quality of image at F/2.0 to allow me to 'shoot wide - crop later' when shooting under the pressure of time and emotion. Then I would use my 24 to 70/2.8, later, in a more controlled portrait situation, which you've described and that I assume you are specifically asking about.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>I received the Canon 50 1.8 STM today. It seems like a nice lens, but as far as sharpness goes, it's not at the same level as the 24-70 2.8L. Of course for a $125 lens. Beautiful bokeh. </p>

<p>The 85mm 1.2L is on my wishlist already for weddings. But for natural light newborn photography, would it get me too close?</p>

<p>The 85/1.2 is not a great newborn lens IMO. Incredible lens, but not for that application. </p>

<p>Lenses are funny - a great lens is a great tool, the photo quality relies on both the gear and the photographer. We each have our own favorite lenses for different applications. And so here I am still lost on which lens "I would prefer" for newborn photography, not knowing as I haven't done a lot of newborn photography, and relying on others. It's the infamous debate of lenses, through this thread and others, I've seen "I always shoot newborns 50mm 1.8" vs "I would never shoot newborns with 50mm", and "24-70 is the way to go" vs "you want open and fast with shallow DOF". I am, respectfully, still very confused. I "feel" 2.8 wouldn't be shallow enough for "amazing"/"perfect" newborn photos. And if that is the case, I think the 50 1.2L or 85 1.2L would be the lens to go with (shooting at ~1.8). As you said though Ian, you wouldn't recommend it. Hm, now I'm not sure where to go with my newborn lens.</p>