Portrait advise

Guys;

My photography interests have changed dramatically since I became a father 45 days ago!

I have previously smashed your forums with questions on equipment and I do seem like that lens geek amateur and it's true.

However; since my daughter came I have made an objective re-evaluation of the equipment I have and the use for them. I have decided I want to downsize my gear; and expand on portraiture.

 

I am happy with my camera Canon 6D; I am very happy with my flash canon 430 exII.

 

Now here are my lenses and current use:

 

Canon 24-105 F4 ISL; good all rounder. I prefer it to F2.8 counterpart which I pre-owned and sold due to weight and usability in travel.

Sigma 50 ART. OMG! Since I bought it 2 months ago I looked down on every other lens I've owned it's just outstanding; and since my daughter is 99% of my interest in photography and likely to be always the case I use this beast >80% of the time.

 

Canon 100 Macro F2.8....I kept it thinking to use as portrait and awesome to have macro too. But I realized honestly nobody told me but on F2.8 is way too sharp for face/body/tone totally not flattering unlike say 50 sigma/canon 135L when I previously had etc...So I feel Macro doesn't double up as a portrait lens I do feel it's not designed for it.

 

Canon 70-200 F4ISL; I honestly use this lens once a year for the last 2-3 years. I force myself to. I dunno maybe cause it's white? I loved it's zoom and back in the day when I was single I used to shoot wildlife and nature and kept it but now if I keep it it would be anticipating shooting candid photos of my little princess when she starts walking/running?!

 

Lastly Canon 17-40L; my sister is making me keep this one it's handy when overseas gives a different perspective on architecture/famous destinations which is nice; but can't say very useful for my family photos when I'm home.

 

So I feel I can easily make my gear more family/portrait focused by:

Keeping standard zoom 24-105; keeping sigma 50 art offcourse

Adding another lens for portraits and sell the rest. Or just keep the white lens and learn to use it/love it.

 

I have sold 135L amazing but the focal length is not for me too zoomed in.

What are your suggestions re a 85-100 mm 2nd portrait lens won't I get a nice addition to my 50?

 

I have tried Canon 85 1.8 and bought it/sold it twice; I hate it's purple fringing but for cost and what I want and it's size I don't mind giving it another try.

Another is Canon 100 F2 apparently rated well

Other choice is Tamron 85 1.8 VC amazing rating and has image stabilization; weight ok 700 g roughly and cost about 800 USD.

Last and as per all reviewers the best 85 for canon but maybe the least practical is the Sigma 85 1.4 Art; expensive as for a hobbyist $1300 USD; weighs a stupid 1200 grams.

 

Or any suggestions? I am in no hurry to buy I will take my time selling the unused lenses first.

I do feel I will get more use for canon 70-200 as my kid grows a little and starts to walk say next year...any parents with experience support this? in which case any prime will be difficult to use. If I listen to my wife she would prefer I sell without buying another lens!

 

Regards

Peter the lens dilemma man!

I really do not understand your problem with the 100mm macro as a portrait lens. If it is anything like the 100mm IS macro then it makes an exceptional portrait lens, and my understanding is the two lenses are very similar performance-wise. I sold both my 135L and my Sigma 85 EX and now use solely the 100 IS if I want a smaller, medium tele.

 

I could not imagine a much better lens than the 24-70II for general baby/toddler shooting to be honest, but it is expensive and the 24-105mm will do too, but with less shallow depth of field options. It seems to me you are left with the 4 choices you have suggested the 85/1.8 (which you don't like much), the 100mm f2 (much the same as the 85/1.8), the Tamron 85mm, and the Sigma ART. In addition there is the Zeiss Makro 100mm although that's MF and the Samyang 85mm, also MF. Of these, I would check out the Tamron. It seems to get generally good reviews, but somehow I don't think they have attracted the media in quite the way Sigma have done in the past few years: not sure why. I think the Sigma ART is not good value, in fact I would look at the 85mm EX, which is 95% of what the ART is at half the weight. Both may or may not have AF focusing issues. I really liked my Sigma, but I ended up selling it as I split the difference with the 135L (which I found I rarely used), and got the 100mm macro IS, which so far is fantastic, lighter and ultimately more useful than either the Sigma 85 or the 135L.

 

I would probably sell the 50 ART and get a 50/1.8 STM. I doubt your photos will suffer, and you would recoup some money, and also sell the 24-105mm and get the 24-70II. Keep the 70-200 f4. That will be very useful. You also might as well keep the 17-40mm. An alternative would be to sell the ART and get the STM and perhaps the Tamron 85mm. You could also check out the Canon 100/2, some people report it is superior to the 85/1.8 - it might be, I have not tried it, but I have to say the OS on the Tamron is a plus factor though.

First concratulations with your daughter.

 

Second if I was you I would keep all the lenses, you have got everything to 200mm covert and every focal length you have can be used for what you want to do.

Don't get too worked up over gear and enjoy your daughter.

You have everything you need. Practice using bounce flash, it will really help once your daughter starts walking/running.

 

Yes, exactly.

 

I do a fair amount of candids of people, and photograph my granddaughter (now age 16 months) a lot. Almost all of the time, my gear for indoor shots of her is this:

 

• Canon 5D III (what I had already)
  
• EF-S 24-105 f/4 L, old version
  
• EF-S 70-200 f/4 IS L
  
• CAnon 430 EXII flash
  
• Demb Flip-it bounce card
  
• Demb Flash diffuser
  

In other words, I use pretty much what you already own.

 

Bouncing the flash is essential. The bounce card gives you just enough catch light. The 70-200 is perfect when you can't get close enough or want to keep the flash farther away so as not to bother the baby. The 24-105 is a perfect range of focal lengths for most of the time. I own a 100mm L macro, but I don't use it because in the tight spaces one confronts indoors, I would much rather have the flexibility of a zoom.

 

This is the flash setup:

 

Personally, I would not get wrapped up over a "portrait" lens. For a child the 24-105 should do just fine.

Because,

- First, there is no clear definition of portrait (from full length adult to tight head shot), and

- Second, as your child grows, the full length will change from about 18 inches now to 5-6 feet in high school. So your lens requirement will change.

 

I would definitely KEEP the 17-40. If not, when your back is literally up against the wall, you are going to wish for a WIDER lens. I used a 24 on my 35mm camera, and there were a few times when I wish I had even more coverage.

 

As for the other lenses, unless you NEED the cash, keep them. Because as your child grows, you will likely end up using them.

- The 70-200 would work for when she gets into sports at school. I found the 80-200 lens a good sports lens, and general short-mid tele lens.

- If YOU have an interest in macro photography, keep the macro, cuz otherwise you have to buy another one later. And I can tell you a 55 macro has a limited working distance, so lighting sometimes is a problem. I would much rather have the longer 100/105 macro.

- Back in the old film days, the Nikon 105 was a popular portrait lens, and it was a sharp lens. Since you are shooting digital, you can post process and soften the image a bit.

 

As SCL said, practice bounce flash. When I shoot family stuff with my DSLR, I usually bounce the flash. It is a much softer light without the harsh shadow of direct flash. And it is easier for dealing with moving kids. Although, as I got older, setting up the DSLR + flash bracket + flash + battery pack, was such a hassle that I just switched to a point & shoot. BUT, the shutter lag on a point and shoot has and still drives me nuts, especially when shooting fast moving kids. That is when I wish I DID put up with the hassle of the DSLR and the flash setup.

 

What I would recommend is that you get a GOOD easy to use compact/point and shoot camera to use for quick "grab shots." It has to be easy for both you and your wife to use. Basically it is what people use their cell phone camera for, but with better quality. Or just use your cell phone camera.

In my youth, I was a 35mm SLR junkie, and thought anything else was not worth using. In hindsight I realized that was a dumb way to think. The problem was, because it took a while and effort to setup the flash on the SLR, I just did not do it as much as I should have. So I MISSED a lot of stuff that I now wish I shot. Even a cheap Instamatic would have been better than nothing. Because, once the moment passes, you can't go back in time to shoot it.

I don't see the requirement for flash to be honest. With the 6D you can great natural light shots with ISOs up to 6400. Yes, you can bounce flash, but that tends to destroy all character from the shot. Much better to used natural window light and, as we are in spring and summer, shoot outside on overcast days. I am not saying flash doesn't have its uses, but with a reasonably fast lens you can get a much nicer natural portrait than with the light from a flash, bounced or not.

If you are hesitant to purchase the Sigma 85mm/1.4 A due to weight and cost, you might consider the Sigma 85/1.4 EX DG HSM instead. It is a marvelous lens for the focal length, ~725g, and available used (though not widely due to it's scarcity in the field) in the $6-650 range. I have not shot w/ the 85 A, so I can't tell you how much 'better' it is, but the EX was light enough not to make it a burden, shot remarkably well WO (especially for portraiture) and near, didn't suffer ANY of the annoying optical flaws of the 85/1.8 and 100/2 (which are darn near identical in optical performance IME). Doing portraiture on FF camera, that and the 135 were go-to lenses... That said, the Tamron might very well be a better choice if you can afford to be limited to f1.8...especially as it is much easier to get your hands on, and comes w/ a 6yr warranty. IME VC/IS/OS is only moderately useful with kids, especially when you are trying to capture candids... but it can be helpful...

You don't need a new lens, what you need imo is lessons. Learn to use your equipment.

And learn to photoshop, baby pix need a lot of cleaning up blemishes.

just my .02

Yes, natural light under certain conditions is beautiful, but if you want candids, you have to take them wherever the kid is, and that is often in a situation where the natural light sucks--e.g., the face in shadows. You also often have to move fast. For example, if you want to catch a certain expression, you can't tell a 6 month old to hold the pose while you move her to near a window. You shoot fast and hope. Bounce flash used well can create very nice lighting, which is why many wedding photographers rely on it.

 

Not trying to pick and argument here, but I have taken a LOT of baby photos over the past year and a half, with and without flash, and a fairly large share of the good ones wouldn't have worked well without flash. So I urge you to learn to do candids with bounced flash, if you don't know already. If you decide not to use it often, no harm--you'll have one more arrow in the quiver.

 

This is an old shot, but it shows that you can get nice contrasts with bounced flash. The lighting was a single 430 EXII aimed wedding-style back over my left shoulder.

 

Huh? Here I was expecting a nice baby pic taken with flash, and what do I get? ;-)

 

In all seriousness, though, I agree. If one knows how to handle the combination of flash and some ambient light, one can get very good, natural-looking results.

paddler

My nephew and nieces used to wonder about me, when the camera was pointed forwards, but the flash was pointed in another direction, sometimes backwards.

The wall makes a nice soft light source.

As I stated flash does have its uses. Flash is best used when you cannot control the light or the subject and you have to make do with what you have. My point is that the OP will have a myriad of opportunities to take shots of his child when the light is just fine, or you can wait until it is, so the requirement for flash is not great.

Robin, not to belabor a point, but flash is sometimes an active, positive choice and not always a backup plan for when the light is not good. To me, flash is simply another good tool to have in one's toolbox. When I spent some time really learning how to use flash, even in situations other people might consider unnecessary lighting conditions, I found myself adding personalized and interesting flourishes to some of my work. There is no generic perfect lighting situation and, in some cases, there is the lighting setup the photographer creates to get a particular look or result. I've taken many good pics in window-light conditions that didn't demand flash but where I used flash to good result. For instance, if I want to include the window in the background and I don't want to just blow it out, I can adjust my exposure for the outside and then use flash to fill in the inside light. The picture of the baby, which will sometimes benefit from an interesting backdrop that includes the window of his or her room, may then include scenes outside the window which can add a lot of dimension to some shots. I've also been in many window-lit rooms that still weren't getting enough light at many hours of the day to shoot without too high an ISO, so flash has come in handy at those times as well.

Yes indeed, Fred. Of course, I agree. But when I see people rushing out to get honking great flash systems it is my experience that this is often a phase that comes with equipment buying in general, and they end up using them much less than they think. After a year or two they end up in the bag with all the other surplus lenses etc and rarely used. In short, I think that high ISO capabilities have largely removed a requirement for flash that was very real in the old film days.

Why are you talking about "people rushing out to get honking great flash systems" in the context of this thread? The only advice I've seen about flash has been really low key and quite reasonable. Obviously, those who've been talking about flash here haven't left the flash equipment in their bags with other rarely-used equipment. It seems like the photographers here use flash wisely and appreciate the flexibility using flash gives them. Why advise someone based on extreme examples we may have read elsewhere on the Internet instead of based on the very practical and sober experience people right here in this thread are bringing to the table?

Guys sorry for the late response been a little sick lately.

 

Paddler 4; thanks for your flash setup photo. Looks practical. I use this gary fong model flash bulb it's so bulky and a pain to carry around. so I will look up your suggestion.

 

Robin thanks but it's funny how everyone else teamed up to tell me enough with lenses and I don't need to change anything!

I know from your previous posts and suggestions that you're a F2.8 lens kind of person/photographer and that's heaps understandable.

But to be honest for me I don't always get wowed by F2.8 whereas I always do get wowed by F1.4-1.8; hence my strategy has been to have a nice 2 portrait lenses or so and then compromise the F2.8 for a good F4 lens for less size; cost and more practicality.

 

But Robin after your post and you being surprised with my commentary on the canon 100 macro I went back to my Canon 100 macro and took a photoshoot of my daughter indoors and OMG they were the best pics I've taken of her so far. I think I can't judge a lens by 1 photoshoot and also the F2.8 being restricted was a plus as I was forced to use F2.8 shutter speed about 1/125 and more light/ISO and all the photos had pleasant bokeh yet all of my daughter's face was in focus (or at least both her eyes) so I couldn't be happier. Also, being Macro too I would keep this lens now.

 

Thanks guys for all your input; I was surprized how almost nobody seemed to care or recommend an 85mm for my needs given my current equipment.

I love this site and appreciate the joy of asking top photographers for their opinion and advise at ease.

 

Have a great day

Peter

Why advise someone based on extreme examples

 

One could also ask why people rushed in to tell the OP to buy a flash when he asked about lenses. As you see, the OP already has a flash+Gary Fong etc and I think he clearly understands my comment, even if you choose to seemingly take offence at what was obviously slight exaggeration for emphasis.

rushed in

spin

quote "I was surprized how almost nobody seemed to care or recommend an 85mm for my needs given my current equipment."

 

Because 85mm is within the range of your 24-105. So from my perspective, why go buy $$$ another lens, when you have that focal length in your current lens? IOW save $$$.

Now if you want a FAST 85mm lens, different story. Then you need a prime lens.

 

I come from the perspective of having used a normal/mid range zoom for decades, so I am quite comfortable with that type of lens. I only need a dupe focal length lens when I need a different feature, such as large aperture for low light or macro. And today with the high ISO capabilities of the cameras, the slow speed of the zoom lens does not hurt as bad as it did in the film days.

I own the 24-105mm, the 70-200mm, a ultra-wide and a super-tele. For portraits, I grab the 70-200mm. It's sharp, flexible and throws nice bokeh, but I'm not a bokeh-queen.

 

When using any of your zooms, be sure to use Digital Lens Optimization to automatically correct for geometric distortion, chromatic aberration, vignetting, etc., etc. at every focal length and every aperture. If you haven't been doing that, then you'll be amazed at the improvement in your results. DLO is part of Digital Photo Professional, which came with your body. LR, PS and DxO all now have it as part of their RAW conversion programs. If you're not shooting RAW, then it's time to start.

 

In the interest of full disclosure, I'm mainly a wildlife photographer, but I've done head-shots for actors and portraits for some other. If this were my main interest, I'd probably add a 70-200/f2.8 to my arsenal, for improved flexibility to throw bokeh. Since you've already owned an f/2.8 zoom and that was too heavy, then, in your shoes, I'd probably add an 85mm to the kit. Still, when you get the bokeh bug, your 50mm will fill the need in many situations.

 

Remember, no matter what, use DLO when doing your RAW conversion.

Thanks guys for all your input; I was surprized how almost nobody seemed to care or recommend an 85mm for my needs given my current equipment.

 

Darn! It must have posted my response to a different thread! ... oh, wait, nevermind ;)

Congratulations on your baby!!! Just keep shooting. You'll love all of them when they grow up. It's amazing how the grow fast.

 

I wouldn't be unhappy with your set up. I've taken some great portraits with the nifty-fifty plastic-fantastic. Sometimes I use my macro, the 135, the 24-70 etc... I even use the 300mm f/4 sometimes.

 

I do use strobes and speedlights a lot though. For babies I do prefer big modifiers and off-camera flash. I think it is a great way to balance the ambient light. A speedlight on a stand with a big softbox or white umbrella is pretty mobile.

 

My two cents are that I do not have a go-to lens for child portraits, I do have go-to lighting.

Without reading any of the other posts, I will give my standard advice.

 

The best camera for baby and infant shots is the one that is with you.

In the old days that was a point-and-shoot in the diaper bag. Nowadays, a smart phone will serve admirably.

 

 

On the other hand if you're trying to justify more gear, that's your problem.

OP,

 

your last post made me realize that I never addressed the f/2.8 question. I have a 100 f/2.8 and don't even carry it with me when I do baby shots. The reason is DOF. If I were doing staged portraits, f/2.8 would sometimes be valuable for its narrow DOF. By the same token, it can be nice when the baby is young enough to stay put. Pretty soon, however, she won't stay put, and you will be trying to catch candids in the moment. In my experience, f/2.8 on a FF camera is a distinct minus. The DOF is too narrow; I often miss the ideal focus (on the eyes), and often too little of the kid's head is in focus. YMMV, but I just packed my bag to get some photos of my 16-month-old granddaughter, and I packed only my 24-105 and 70-200, both f/4.

 

Two last comments about flash. First, about this:

 

There are two very different reasons for using flash, as one of the other poster's noted. One is insufficient light. The other is lighting you don't like. My reason for using flash in candids of people is much more often the latter. The simple fact is that most of the time, people indoors aren't lit in ways I want. I shoot candids with a 5DIII, so I can bump up ISO a good bit, but it doesn't help with that problem.

 

About my flash rig: I have only used two types of diffusers, but I haven't noticed a great deal of difference. The bounce card is another matter. If you are bouncing off a ceiling, you often won't have catch light in the eyes, you can have shadows under the eyebrows, etc. Having a small amount of direct light can make a big difference. I use the standard Demb for this, but he also makes a smaller card, if you don't want the big one I use. B&H sells them, I think, and you can buy them directly from Joe Demb's website.