Lens for new born shots

[ben_quinn1]

<p>I need to take some shots of my new born in February, I'm looking for feedback from those with <strong>actual </strong>experience in this area. <br /><br />I havea 40d and I am currently thinking that a EF 35mm f/1.4 is my best bet along with my EF 24-70mm f/2.8. Both are close focusing but should I go for a true macro prime e.g. EFS 60mm f/2.8? I hate flash and only want to have two lenses. I don't need wider than 24mm-35mm. I will obviously be inside a lot in February however we do have a lot of light. </p>

[15sunrises]

<p>I know you said you wanted people with actual experience, but I noticed that you mentioned the 35mm 1.4, so maybe I could suggest the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 which has gotten fantastic reviews.</p>

[luis_g]

<p> From experience, a bit of slightly off-topic advice. Get the best camera you can with a swiveling LCD finder. It will make a world of difference being at the baby's level for many shots.</p>

[anov]

<p>From experience, I used EF 28mm f/1.8 and a 85mm f/1.8. Back then I only used Kodak 400CN on an Elan IIe. I don't think I want to deal with more than 2 lenses in the delivery room. Good luck.</p>

[anders_carlsson]

<p>I had a macro when my child was a baby but rarely used it fully since I didn't find such extreme close-ups to be particulary interesting. I used a 50/1.4 far more. I'm thinking that if you do have good light then you probably won't need any other lens than your zoom. It has the perfect range for this kind of photography and f/2.8 will often be enough. Still, how about an ultra-wide zoom? Even if you don't need it, strictly speaking, it can be great fun. (And, as always, throw in a 50/1.8.) Good luck!</p>

[phule]

<p>For the first six months of my sons life (including the birth), I used almost nothing but the 50mm f/1.8 on a Canon 350D. It was a great combination for both me and my wife.</p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>I like the Canon 24-70mm for it's close focus capability. You can really focus on the small details as well as doing nice portraits at the longer focal lengths. Very useful.<br>

This kid is not quite newborn, but you get the idea...</p>

<p><img src="http://iantaylor.ca/images/24701.jpg" alt="" /><br>

<img src="http://iantaylor.ca/images/24702.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[tdigi]

<p>You wont need a true macro, your 24-70 will give you all the close focusing you need to shoot people. The 35 1.4 is expensive and big for a prime but I hear its great so if you have the $$ go for it</p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>I also have the 35/1.4, which is an incredible lens, but not really super useful for this type of work IMO.</p>

[images_in_light_north_west]

<p>Why not a 135 f2 ?</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>I have actual experience with newborns - though it has been a while: the last one is now in college. </p>

<p>I don't think you need and special lens for a newborn. Whatever lens works for taking photographs of people for you will work just fine for taking photographs of your baby. </p>

<p>Dan</p>

[funkag]

<p>Speaking from my experience (my daughter is 18 months old now), a 17-55 IS works great (from hospital onwards), but since you have the 24-70 already, you're pretty well covered. A zoom is good because once they start moving, they don't stop - even this year's Christmas picture was taken with AI Servo as Emily lumbered towards me. </p>

<p>There is something to be said for a smaller lens (50 1.4 or 1.8, for example) or a nice p/s, because my daughter was quite intimidated by the big lens when she was little - she rarely smiled after I disappeared behind the big black thing that was the camera. With the little Fuji F10, she could still see me and the bright and shiny silver was more fascinating to her than intimidating. </p>

<p>Also, a good UV filter is a must - I have lots of pictures of silhouette of outstretched hands (which led to more than one mac n cheese covered filter) ... </p><div></div>

[pturton]

<p>For getting pictures of my newly arrived grandchildren I've used the 35L, EF 50 f/1.4 and EF 85 f/1.8 with the latter my preferred lens for the newborn with window lighting. When close focused, all these prime lenses need to be stopped down to get sufficient DOF. Your 24-70 f/2.8 should be sufficient. <br>

30D + EF 85 f/1.8 @ f/2.8, 1/160, ISO 320, evening window light<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/7626149">http://www.photo.net/photo/7626149</a></p>

 

[sarah_fox]

<p>I have two kids in college. Do I qualify?<br>

The most important features for any lens will be:</p>

<ul>

<li>Rapid and accurate AF (Ring-type USM, larger aperture)</li>

<li>ergonomic MF, for when the AF fails you (including full-time MF)</li>

<li>an ergonomic zoom</li>

</ul>

<p>I would add that natural light photography is best wherever you can use it, because it doesn't distract the child. The 40D has a very unobtrusive shutter, so I think that will work well for you too.<br>

The thing to remember is that children are constantly and often randomly moving targets, and they don't pause long for photo ops. They're very coopertative as newborns, but just wait until they start cruising the furniture!<br>

Congratulations, BTW! :-)</p>

[ben_quinn1]

<p>I think a prime is absolutely essential in February when I am mostly going to be inside even if there is reasonable light in the house. My 24-70 is not super sharp enough until well past 2.8 so this alone will not do the job. 135mm f/2 would be great if I lived in a 10,000 sq ft mansion.<br>

I am interested as to why you think the 35mm would not be useful as its a normal prime on my 40d? A 50mm prime will be too long to be versitile indoors and any wider than 35mm will distort features if I am close up. That said the 60mm macro would compliment even if I did not use it that often.<br>

In the delivery room I am planning to take a small point and shoot, i don't want to be waiving aound my 24-70 in the delivery room.</p>

[phule]

<p>[[A 50mm prime will be too long to be versitile indoors<br /> and any wider than 35mm will distort features if I am close up]]<br>

I don't know why you think the 50mm lens will be too long to be versatile indoors. That statement runs quite contrary to my experience.</p>

[ben_quinn1]

<p>I missed some of the later posts. Suprised there aren't any huge fans of the 35mm f/1.4 and surprised so many think a zoom alone would do the job. However some interesting points here.</p>

[tdigi]

<p>I remember an older post of someone using a 35 1.4 in the delivery room and he got great shots.</p>

<p>Your 24-70 is not sharp at 2.8? it should be pretty sharp. </p>

[funkag]

<p>I like the 17-55 because it is tack sharp at 2.8. The 80mm equ. of a 50mm prime isn't really too long, but if you're looking for that classic "normal" perspective, the 35 1.4 is going to be the best lens out there.</p>

[landscape_shooter]

<p>I just used a 24-105mm and a 50 1.8 to take photos of my new nephew and it worked great. I think the 24-70 would be the ideal lens. Wider than 24 would be unneccesary. The 24-70 would work better being faster. Have you used a prime before? 1.4 sounds great but it will take some practice as the depth of field is very shallow and you will need to move around more. I would try something cheaper first unless I knew for sure it was what I wanted. I wouldn't get a macro for this. You can just crop some on your computer, I did this and it worked great to get some close up shots of his feet etc. Best wishes</p>

[phule]

<p>Ben,</p>

<p>Had I owned my 35mm f/2 at the time of my son's birth, I might have been tempted to bring it instead...it's hard to say.<br>

That being said, I found that once he started crawling, the the 35mm was a better choice than the 50mm inside.</p>

[melissapapajphotography]

<p>I love my 60mm 1.8 Macro lens for this! Great for the details...</p>

[burnedred1]

<p>I became a father of girl now in may 2008 and during the the pregnancy and thru the delivery at the hospital i used my eos-1n and Ilford hp5, 90% with ef35 2.0 and 10% ef 50 1.8. <br>

I choose film over my eos 40d because i thought my daughter might want to see the photos some day. </p>

 

[brian_seay]

<p>In the hospital I mainly used the 24-70mm f/2.8L (on my 5D). I also used the 100mm f/2.8 macro on a Rebel XT and got some wonderful shots with that. When we came home, I found that I wanted to get some pics while the baby was in my lap, so close focus distance was essential. The 35mm f/1.4 is has close enough minimum focus distance (f/2 slightly closer, much lighter weight ) and is probably the right choice on a crop sensor. For the 5D, I got the 50mm f/2.5 compact macro because if I filled the frame with the newborn's face with the 35mm it wasn't too flattering -- I bet you'd get the same effect if you went 24mm on a crop sensor.</p>

[russel_yee]

<p>I used the 50 1.4 for many pictures of my newborn nephews, it will work well, for newborns... that being said the 35 1.4 which I didn't have at the time is bigger, but produces really, nice images and seems like it would be perfect for gettin in a bit closer.</p>