Need Advice on Lenses

[al_n.]

<p>Need advice on these two lenses that I found, which are:</p>

<p>CANON NEW FD 75-200mm f4.5 MACRO ZOOM<br>

and<br>

CANON 50mm MACRO FD LENS w/FD TUBE</p>

<p>The main purpose that I want a lens for is for taking close up shots of the new baby. I currently have a 50mm 1.8 lens which I really like, but does not allow me to get up close as I would like. One of the things that I would like to do is fill up the whole frame of a picture with just the baby's face. I like how on the CANON NEW FD 75-200mm f4.5 MACRO ZOOM it allows me to zoom on objects further away, but I remember reading on another forum that zoom lenses with macro were not that great. I don't really need to take pictures of objects that are far away, but it would be nice to have, not necessary, but nice. The main reason I want a lens for is just to take close up shots of the baby. Any help would be very much appreciated.</p>

<h1 ><br /></h1>

 

<h1 ><br /></h1>

<p> </p>

<h1 ><br /></h1>

[awahlster]

<p>We have a 75-200mm f4.5 nFD and it have found it to be a very useful lens. Image quality is plenty good enough for 8X12 enlargements and slides. I see no reason why it wouldn't do just fine for soem Baby photo's. We used it as our long lens on our trip to Europe and love the resulting slides. It's a perminate part of my wife's kit.<br>

The 50mm f3.5 is razor sharp and a great macro and will allow you to focus down to 9.1" which is close enough 1/2 your babies face will fill the frame. Lighting will be a problem that close.</p>

<p>As a Grandpa of 17 and 29 month old granddaughters the instant the child can start to move on their own you will never get close enough to worry about needing a macro.</p>

<p> </p>

[bob_miller4]

<p>These lenses will be plenty good for now. I've found that a focal length of 85 to 100mm produces really good photos of our young grandchildren. The greater focal length vs. a 50mm normal lens lets you fill the frame from a more comfortable distance. You may not need your zoom's macro feature. The zoom is not as sharp as the outstanding 50mm/3.5 macro, but more than sharp enough for portraits.<br /> For children who move around, you'll want to use a good fast film so that you can stop down to get the most depth of field and (outdoors) be able to use a fast shutter speed.<br /> In the future, you might want to get a fast 85mm or 100mm lense for portraits, if the cost is not prohibitive. These could be easier to focus precisely in low light situations.</p>

<p> </p>

[jeffrey_winn]

<p>Al N.<br>

I reccommed using a Canon FD 100mm lens. I have and use a Canon FD 100mm f 2.8 lens, and I've used it for some tight close up's. You will be pleased with this lens. They are not expensive, and good examples can be had for a modest price.</p>

<p>Don't forget about the other details of the picture. Use quality film for these photos. I like Fuji PRO 160, and would use this film for similar photos. Take your time on getting the lighting corect. Assuming that you are not using flash, go outdoors in the late afternoon for the better light. Take the photos in the shade, or on a day with a thin overcast sky. Take your time and the photos will look great.</p>

<p>Good Luck,</p>

<p>Jeff</p>

[User_502260]

<p>The 75-200/4.5 New FD focuses to 1.8 meters. That's just shy of six feet. I f you shoot at or near the 70mm setting you won't be close enough. You can shoot portraits at the 200mm setting but your focus is even more critical and the depth of field is very shallow. On top of that your finder is not very bright at f/4.5. I would recommend a 100/2.8. Either the FD SSC or the New FD would be fine. They both focus to 3 feet and are easier to focus in lower light. </p>

[sw12dz]

<p>Macro lenses are for macro photography. 85-100-135mm lenses are normally used for portrait photography. Zoom lenses are great for taking photos of kids, especially once they grow legs! The 75-200 f4.5 would be my choice of the two you mention. I've attached a sample photo below taken with a zoom lens. Is this what you are trying to achieve?</p><div></div>

[al_n.]

<p>Thank you so much everybody for your knowledgeable answers! i feel so much more enlightened in the realm of lenses, and Stuart Gross, that is exactly one of the things that I want to do. I am going to do a search for 100-135mm lenses, and see which ones fit my budget since they are best for portrait photography, and I want my pictures to be sharp as possible and I don't want to have any problems with not being able to focus properly in low light, such as how Jeff Adler said could be an issue with zooming in at 200mm, which could cause me to loose a great shot! Thanks again to everyone who helped me!</p>

[alan_swartz]

<p>For striking facial portraits, I second the notion that using a short telephoto at a comfortably large shooting distance is more effective than using a 50mm macro up close; the idea here is to use the advantages of telephoto rather than macro. </p>

<p>The main argument against the 50mm is the perspective distortion that the it will cause at close shooting distances. It will enlarge the child's nose and render the face out of proportion. It's not the most flattering approach. And that's exactly why people refer to 85 and 100mm lenses as "portrait lenses." They will offer a much more natural perspective of the face, while giving you the important added advantage of shooting from farther away. With a moving target such as a child, that means a great deal. Indeed, when they grow legs, catching them at all with manual focus is a real challenge. Makes bird photography look easy.</p>

<p>You could of course use that 75-200mm to achieve the same result, but the f/4.5 aperture will make focusing your moving target difficult even if your eyes are better than mine. Therefore, I'd actually recommend neither of the lenses you mentioned. My first preference would be the 85mm f/1.8. You get good magnification at reasonable shooting distance as well as a bright viewfinder that aids focusing immensely, especially indoors. You also have a wide maximum aperture that enables you to make existing-light shots of the baby, with window light, lamplight, or even candlelight. You won't <em>have</em> to use flash. The 100mm lenses, either f/2 or f/2.8, would also be good, but I found that they were just a little too long for me. The 85mm worked better. It was also my favorite lens to take to the playground, very comfortable for full-body shots of my daughter. It was more comfortable for her, too, because she always tended to freeze when I'd get too close with the camera.</p>

<p>When you're outdoors, such as in Stuart's example, the 75-200 would be more usable. Light is better and you're liable to be farther away from your subject (as she runs away from your camera position), where you more likely need the 100-200mm range. My daughter presented me with an abundance of opportunities to photograph the back of her head as she ran away to do something else.</p>

 

[alan_swartz]

<p>Begging everyone's indulgence and stretching the topic a little, I thought I'd include a few shots that illustrate the effects of several different lenses and one child. The first was shot in a museum under existing light with a 50mm/1.4. There was just enough shutter speed to hand hold, and the wide aperture made for nice depth-of-field distinction.</p><div></div>

[alan_swartz]

<p>Then the 85mm indoors with bounce flash. This was a very comfortable working distance.</p><div></div>

[alan_swartz]

<p>Now up to the 135/2.0, which kept me out of the water. At the distance I had to work to stay dry, the 135 was good for framing and depth of field. It's a contrasty slide and the scan is awful. It does no justice at all to this lens.</p><div></div>

[alan_swartz]

<p>And with this, I'll get off the soapbox. This was the 300/4L wide open in evening light. I love the miniscule depth of field.</p><div></div>

[al_n.]

<p>Thank you so much Alan! I was wondering how shots with some of the telephoto lens would look like, and know I know. Thanks for the great advice, and I appreciate your time in uploading those pictures to help out this newbie figure out what kind of lens to get. That 85mm 1.8 sounds good, especially since there is a lot more shooting opportunities indoors right now while the baby is still so young.</p>

[ed_lusthoff]

<p>You can always shoot the shot as claos as you can then crop the photo. With a 50MM you should be close enough to where minimal croping would do the trick. save money on a lens for the time being. Just a thought.</p>