Best Nikon Lens for Baby Portraits and Closeups

[rich_decristo]

I am as amateur as amateur can get in this area. I have been using a point

and click canon SD630 for the past 2 years and have found that I really enjoy

taking pictures. I want to start engaging the world of DSLR cameras now. As

a true beginner, I have come to the conclusion that the Nikon D40 is the

camera for me both from a usability as well as cost perspective (hope this

holds to be true). The catch is that I don?t truly understand lenses all that

well.

 

I have read rave reviews of the D40 kit 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 lens and also the 55-

200 VR lens which I have found as part of the 2 lens kit on B&H, Adorama and

RitzCamera. We have our first baby on the way due in early March. Primarily

I want to take pictures of the baby growing (both portraits and close-ups),

and also pictures of nature and scenery. (I live in NYC) Now my friend who

has more experience in this world than I do says that the kit lenses have an

aperture of f/3.5-5.6 which is not low enough in low light for pictures of

babies (guess you shouldn?t' use a flash for them early on) and that I should

get a lens with a speed of 2.8 or lower.

 

Being that I am starting out in the area and am also on a budget, are the two

lenses that are part of the kit good for what I am looking to tackle or should

I look at another type of lens. Also if you have any other recommendations I

would greatly appreciate them.

[frank_skomial]

You will make wonderful baby pictures with the 2 kit lenses you mentioned. You do not have to shoot in total darkness. Use of little camera built-in flash will not harm your child.

 

You ask for "Best" lens, so certainly you can get more expensive lens, but that is totally unnecessary. If you insist for the best then get the new 24-70/2.8 lens at about $1700.

[ronald_moravec1]

See the thread 1/24/08 on D40 lenses. To get fast primes with full functionality, you

need AFS lenses. Nikon has chosen to limit what can be done with this model.

 

I would stay away if I wanted to take pics in low light without flash.

 

Neither lens is made well, lots of plastic and less metal, but the optics are ok and there is

a 5 year warrantee.

 

I would rather have a D80, 24,35, and 60mm lenses. These. would be the classic focal

lengths for 35mm photography and you need not put up with the zoom lens limitations.

Start with the 35 as it is the basic normal lens. 24 is the standard wide, 60 for portraits

and close up.

 

Add a tele zoom when he/she gets into sports. Right now you do not need it

[ldw]

I wouldn't worry about using a flash early on. I agree your lenses are fine, could you get a more "portrait" suited lens, well you could, but you definitely don't need one especially if you are just starting out. The one thing I think you should consider is getting a flash that you can mount on your D40 as opposed to using the D40's built in flash, such as a SB-600 or SB-800. You will get a lot of flexibility and with one of these flashes, for example you will be able to rotate the flash so you can bounce it off the ceiling to minimize shadows amongst other things.

[david_peterson9]

Get a "kit lens" for everyday shooting and one of the following two lenses, depending on your budget, for portraits or just great snapshots:

- Nikon 50mm 1.4 (~$300 online)

- Nikon 50MM 1.8 (~$125 online)

 

The 50mm lense is a great portrait lens for a DX camera and can double as an indoor sports lens when the child is a bit older. I have the 1.4 and it is great for low-light shooting.

[ofey_kalakar]

35 f2

[ilkka_nissila]

The 35/2 is great for the price.

[bruce_margolis]

"Being that I am starting out in the area and am also on a budget"

 

Rich, everyone is on a budget. It's just that some have larger budgets than others. ;-)

 

Assuming your budget is somewhat modest, the 18-55 kit lens is a great starter. Your baby will remain somewhat stationary for some time.

 

IMO you want a flash before you get another lens. The SB-600 would be perfect for you with its swivel/bounce features. The longer lens is okay but definitely not needed for baby photos.

 

Begin with this. You will know soon enough what you feel you are missing.

[mark_sirota1]

I'm with Ron -- the D80, 24/2.8, 35/2, and 60/2.8 Micro would be a great kit for a new parent who's into photography. Once the kid gets wildly mobile and is playing with friends, a zoom may be more worthwhile. If you wanted to start with one lens of these three, I might disagree with Ron -- I'd start with the 60 Micro. I think it's more useful in those earlier days, but that's really a question of personal style.

 

(For a new parent who's not into photography, I'd recommend a good digicam -- otherwise you're paying for stuff you won't use, and perhaps won't carry because it's big, heavy, and complex by comparison.)

 

Somewhere in there you might pick up a flash or two and learn to use wireless off-camera flash, but there's a steeper learning curve there; I'd wait on external flashes until you know whether you're into this and want to invest the time and brain power into learning to use them.

[madhu_menon]

I too agree with David. The 50MM f/1.8D is great with D80. I personally use it for the Baby Portraits and Closeups. Since it has f/1.8, It is a fast lens. It is good for Low light and indoors.

 

It is very sharp. Since it is a FX lens it works well on D80 for the close ups due to the 1.5X crop factor of the DX giving it a Zoom effect.

 

-Madhu

[justin_ngo]

I'm having a newborn baby as well. Absolutely, I don't want to point flash toward my baby eyes which are very sensitive to extreme light.

 

I ordered a fast lens 50mm f/1.8 ( excellent in low light condition) just for around $100 and a SB-600 for almost $200 (to bounce the light to ceiling).

The only unconvenience is that the 50mm fast lens does not auto foccus on my D40x, but I'm improving with auto focus and get along with it.

 

If you are on tight budget, your 18-55mm is fine., just get a SB-600 flash for ceiling bounce light.

[tim_knight]

Rich, It was said earlier that the D40 only has full Auto Focus with Nikon AFS lenses. This means that any of the primes mentioned would require you to manually focus, example the 50/1.8 and 35/2.0. If you do want a fast prime for low light Sigma has the 30/1.4 that will Auto Focus on the D40. For the ability to buy any of these older Nikon primes and have Auto Focus the D80 would be the way to go.

[ronald_moravec1]

Baby flash is best done with flash bounces off the ceiling or another surface. Any on

camera flash makes terrible light. I use mine only if i am in serious need of light.

[sandeep_kumar10]

Our baby is on her way as well. I plan to use Nikon D80 with Nikon 50mm f/1.8. This lens allows flash free photography under most light conditions, and costs around $100. I would invest additional $100 for Nikon D80 instead of Nikon D40

[calarrick]

Most of the baby pictures here ("Levi" collection) were taken with a D80 and the ($100) 50mm/1.8:

 

The SB-600 is also a great investment for these kinds of shots, and would be especially so if using the 18-55 zoom instead of the fast 50.

[larrybc]

I'd wait another week to see what Nikon introduces at the PMA show. There are rumours that a successor to the D40/40x cameras might be introduced. Or maybe something in between the D40/40x and D80? Or a D80 replacement. In any case, something new will be announced. So even if the existing cameras are suitable for you, I would expect their prices to come down very soon.

 

My personal favourite lens for photographing my kids when their were babies was my 50/1.4. But if you buy a D40/40x which won't AF with that lens, I'd be tempted to buy a Sigma 18-50/2.8 HSM which will AF with that camera.

 

Also, flash is fine for babies. I haven't read of any medical warnings saying otherwise. The staff in the delivery room certainly had to qualms about putting our kids under extremely bright lights immediately after their were born. Some millisecond flashes from a camera flash aren't going to hurt 'em, imo. For that matter, I was encouraged to bring a camera into the delivery room for my wife's c-section. They were surprised when I showed up with an "old fashioned" camera (manual rangefinder and no flash).

 

larsbc

[tim_knight]

Andrew, I looked at your baby pictures (Very Nice Pictures!). They sure looked familiar to me. We were blessed this past September with a grandaughter and in November a grandson. In both cases I was in the room with my D50/50/1.8 combo when they brought in the mother and child. For the money and quality it is hard not to recommend it to every new DSLR photographer that ask what they sould buy for lenses.

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

Light will matter more than lens choice.

[dave_weber1]

I find the 50mm f/1.8 too sharp and contrasty for baby photos! I prefer a softer lens that is less contrasty. Many lenses would fit that bill, for me, I like the old manual Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 for such portrature.

[bsd230]

I have a Sigma 24-60mm f2.8 that I really like, since I bought it last fall it hasn't came off my camera. It takes a great full length portrait , it's sharp and fast. I have taken a couple pictures of babies and thought it did an excellent job. I found a great deal on amazon.com, bought it on sale for 179.00 regularly 400.00. You'll never find a zoom lens that will out perform it for the price.

[bsd230]

I would also agree that light is very important, I own the SB-600 which allows you the ability to soften the light and still have enough light to get a good photo, not to mention bounce flash, wireless, etc. I sometimes wish I had bought the SB-800 but for most situations I have found the 600 to be sufficient. If you don't get a faster lens, then I would invest in a good flash.

[Hector Javkin]

The Nikon D40 and D40x cannot autofocus with some of Nikon's best and most reasonably priced lenses for indoor photography without flash. Autofocus really helps. What you save in a D40 may well cost you later on.

 

1. Don't buy a big powerful flash for use on your child. That's all you need, a baby that begins crying at the sight of a camera. Their eyes are very sensitive.

 

2. If you can, wait a week or so and see if Nikon announces a new camera. Look for one that can take lenses like the 50mm f/1.8. (BTW, I use a 50mm f/1.4, but it is more expensive, and the difference in speed is not that important.)

 

3. If there is nothing new announced and you are able to, buy a D80 or even a used D50, and a 50mm f/1.8.

 

4. If you can, get a Tamron or Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8. There are many indoor shots you can get with these lenses. If that isn't possible, go for the VR version of the Nikon 18-55mm. VR won't help with your baby's motion, but will neutralize much of the camera shake. One of the situations when you might want photos without flash is when your baby is sleeping (depending on sleep patterns and reactions to noise.)

 

5. Don't bother with a telephoto zoom right away. When you're photographing your baby, you won't be very far away. Wait until your child is playing soccer or something -- then you might need something more than a 55-200.

[albinonflickr]

I took most of my daughter's portraits with D200 and the..

 

50/1.8

 

..since her 3,5 months existence.

 

Manually focussed, all of them. So the D40 comparison is valid.

[s._mangrove]

#1 - ($105) Stay with your kit setup and purchase the SB400 - bounce the flash.

 

#2 - ($1,200) Get the Nikon 17-55, which will probably stay on your camera 95% of the time from there on out.

 

With the kit lenses you are limited both technically and artistically. For shooting children, you probably want shallow depth of field to help remove/blur the distractions (which are everywhere with children). Obviously with the variable aperture your low light shooting capability without a flash is compromised unless you want to boost your ISO up to the noisy ranges.

[byron_delva]

Rich, I got into DSLR's for the same reason you have. I did not want the P&S look of my first child's pictures almost two years ago. I decided then on a D70s with the 18-70mm kit lens and a Nikkor 50mm f/1.4. As a couple of others members have recommended before me, the D80 would be a better investment for what you want to do, because the limited number of fast prime lenses that will AF with the D40. You will be able to take beautiful pictures with just those two lenses. Another option to the 50mm would be the 35mm f/2 which will give you a close focusing distance.