Preparing for Baby Portraits: 60mm AF-S Macro?

[philip_tam]

<p>Hi,</p>

<p>My wife is pregnant and is due on Oct. 29. I want to get a new lens to take portraits of the baby, and I'm considering which lens to pick. The one I keep eyeing is the 60mm AF-S micro. I'd like a lens that's really sharp, and can work with tight-croppings of faces with no perspective distortion, and can potentially do pictures of baby feet, etc. I also like the fact that it would be a good lens to do general macro work, since I don't have a lens that does 1:1 right now. I'm a bit worried that it only opens up to f/2.8 however, so I made a list of other things I could do:</p>

<p>Get the 50mm f/1.4 AF-S, and later on get the 105mm micro.</p>

<p>Upgrade (from a D60) to a D90, get the 50mm f/1.8 (D90 needed for autofocus), and later on a 105mm micro.</p>

<p>Get the Tamron 60mm macro f/2.</p>

<p>Replace the kit lens with a 17-50 f/2.8, and later get the 105mm micro.</p>

<p>In all cases, I may upgrade to the D5000, for bracketing, CA correction, and slightly better high ISO performance. I also think you can output to RAW+any JPEG quality.</p>

<p>What would you do in my place? Any other suggestions? I really want to have good pictures of my kid when he's born... I don't want to miss this fleeting time.</p>

<p>Other lenses I have that may be relevant: 35mm AF-S DX, but I'd have to nearly poke the baby with the lens to get tight cropping.</p>

[wpahnelas]

<p>if i were you, i'd go for the 50/1.4.</p>

[Jerry_]

<p>The AF 60mm Micro-Nikkor is a f2.8 lens except in macro use. The closer you get, the lens may be at f4 or f4.5, as happens with most lenses designed for micro- or macro photography. If you have a camera body that supports high ISO settings (think the D700) and you can do all the baby images you want at ISO 4000 or ISO 5000, no flash, and whatever lens you decide on.</p>

<p> </p>

[ramon_v__california_]

<p>i'd keep the camera, get the 60mm that you desire and get the 35mm f/1.8. the 18-55mm kit lens will do the rest. that kit lens is actually a very good and capable lens for the baby and the whole family..........</p>

<p>get the 105mm later if the 60mm is still limiting you for the growing baby.</p>

[sebastianmoran]

<p>Philip, how wonderful it is to be expecting a new baby.</p>

<p>I'm recently in a similar position, one generation later... A granddaughter. </p>

<p>I outfitted by daughter with a D90 and 50mm f/1.8. We are getting wonderful available light images. As the child get bigger, you'll want to add a normal lens, perhaps the 28mm f/2.8 or a 30 or 35mm lens.</p>

[mark_sirota1]

<p>I think the 60/2.8 micro is a top choice for baby photography.</p>

[shiang_wang1]

<p>I used only one lense on my new born years ago : 60mm macro AFD on a film body. Perfect working distance for me, the face, the tiny fingers and toes, very sharp images and great bokeh. They are station in the few first months, I had plenty of time to focus, compose. On a D60, I think it is a bit long for crib shot. But that is me, if you find 35mm too short, you will be more comfortable with 60mm. This lense will definitely be useful when the kid starts crawling, walking and running.</p>

<p>With ambient light during the day, I was able to avoid flash with ISO100. Occasionly when the moment I got to have this shot comes and there is not enough light, I would use flash bouncing off the ceiling. Something to think about if you find the low light performance of your current camera is lacking.</p>

<p>Go nuts with your new baby, I know I couldn't get enough pictures out of mine.</p>

[julio_marcos]

<p>Sigma 50mm f/1.4 for delightful images with creamy backgrounds (and fast autofocus) and the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 for more casual pictures with the rest of the family. The 35mm is a contrasty lens, balances the Sigma look. I does have some distortion, you can always use Lightroom 3 for auto lens correction.<br>

A macro lens is handy but not as useful as a fast portrait lens in my opinion (how many baby feet/hand pictures are you going to take?)<br>

Keeps RAWs around even if you don't use them now, you can always re-process them in the future (sometimes the advances in image quality outdo new camera generation sensors!)</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>I`d be between the 60 and 85 Micro... as a FX user I think "the lens" is the 105VR. It`s almost the only lens I use for baby portraits. Any 55-60 is too short to my liking (FX).<br /> Non micro lenses doesn`t allow to get focus that closer. Discarded. Pro zooms are too big&heavy.<br /> Also, I find the VR feature really useful for that task. Sadly, the shortest micro with VR is the 85, which in the other hand is f3.5 instead of f2.8. I`d need to know how this lens works at closer distances... even if it looses 2/3 stop it could be still interesting for its VR. Maybe others have compared this two lenses (I don`t).<br /> The most beautiful thing in life is to have and to rear a child. Congratulations.</p>

[mihai_ciuca]

<p>Hi Philip,<br /> Great news and very good to see you preparing for the baby!<br /> You will not go wrong with Nikon 60/2.8 nor with Sigma 50/1.4. Both are very good lenses. Normally I prefer fixed lenses over zooms but for your particular application, I'd recommend Tamron AF 28-75mm f/2.8 SP XR Di LD Aspherical which is a underrated lens, very affordable, with glowing reviews (i.e. on photozone.de) that have good close-up capabilities (minimum focus distance 0.33m), an unbelievable good IQ and offers a very practical focal range for your actual and future applications, on a crop camera an equivalent of 42 - 107.5mm which include normal range and portrait too... Based on reviews and on other people recommendations I aquired this lens and it makes me feel that the money I spent on it are some of the most wise spent ever on gear. You only need to test carefully your copy because some have QC problems - mine works perfectly. Anyhow Tamron comes with a long warranty so that's another advantage.<br /> Just one more thing... usually I recommend for DX bodies Tamron 17-50/2.8 which is a good lens too. But it seems to be short for your applications and the 28-75 cost less, is a FX lens, and covers better the portrait range.</p>

[ArthurRichardson]

<p>Being a father of three, if I were you I was decorating the baby room now. That will keep the Mrs. happy and give you time to take pictures later without her constantly reminding you of getting your priorities right. Trust me, I've been there!</p>

<p>On topic, I'm an FX user so I wouldn't know about the 60mm. Like Jose, I have used the 105 and that was magical for portraits. That's 2.8 as well, and I would not bother too much about bokeh, because it was very smooth. Since the 60mm on a DX sensor will be comparable with a 90mm on FX, I would prefer that over the 85mm. Not only for the focal length, but more so for the maximum aperture opening, and I read that the 85mm is so so.</p>

<p>But most importantly: congratulations!</p>

[elliot1]

<p>Getting really great newborn shots will be more about the lighting then about the lens (assuming you are using natural lighting). And for that you will likely need a fast lens. Given the cost difference between the 50mm f1.8 and the 50mm AF-S f1.4, I like your idea to upgrade to a D90 and get the 50mm f/1.8 so you have auto focus with it. Another great lens to consider would be Nikon's 85mm f1.8 which is an ultra sharp lens and great for portraits. Like the 50mm f1.8, it won't auto focus on your D60. While neither of these lenses are suitable for macro work, you do have a valid excuse to buy another lens which is always a good thing (I think) - you can never have enough lenses! (Good macro lenses are plentiful and inexpensive).</p>

[j_zsef_gazs_]

<p>I have just photographed a 6-month old baby with a 105 vr micro and a 35 f1.8 lenses. I think they are perfect complements.<br>

Here you can see the results, if you are interested: <a href="http://picasaweb.google.hu/ifjgazso/">http://picasaweb.google.hu/ifjgazso/</a> <br>

Pictures were taken with a D300s at apprx ISO 800-1000 in the living room, using only natural light.<br>

To sum up, 105 vr is awesome, I really love it for portraits, sports, concerts and macro work (extremely versatile lens). I am actually using it for all of the above-mentioned four types of photograpgy (in the gallery at the link above you can see sample pictures..). I also reckon that the 60 micro is a bit short, and you will block some light…, and the new 85 vr micro is not fast enough considering other fields than macro.</p>

 

[rob_piontek]

<p>I have the 50 1.8 and prefer to stop down one stop, so there is not much difference in speed for me compared to a 2.8, if you like the 2.8 wide open. I loved the 85 1.8 when I had it, though I also shot it at 2.2 or 2.8, but it does not focus very close.</p>

[cc_chang2]

<p>For the first three months or so of your baby's life, his/her face is usually full of bruises, pimples, etc, due to the delivery and various hormonal swings. Thus it is not a good idea to photograph this with a macro lens, which is designed to show off very little detail of your subject. Also keep in mind that most of the time, your baby will be indoors so a fast lens is necessary. Finally, unless your house is huge, you may not have enough working distance for a long lens. Thus all things considered, I suggest you get a 50mm lens. The Nikon 50/1/8 is a very good value; however, if money is not an issue, get the new AFS 50/1.4. the Sigma 50/1.4 that many have already mentioned is a truly outstanding lens, especially in the area of bokeh. However on my D90 at low light, this lens hunts. Either 50mm lenses will work with the D60. By going to the D90, you gain about one stop of ISO, which helps if your nursery is dark.</p>

[philip_tam]

<p>Thanks for all the replies and the well wishes!</p>

<p>Just to be clear, I do indeed already have the 35mm f/1.8. I think for tight crop portraits, I usually stop down to mid F2's to F3 anyhow, so I thought maybe the 60mm micro's f/2.8 is about right. I wouldn't be afraid to shoot with the 60mm wide open either.</p>

<p>The reason why I'm really on the fence about this is that I'm faced with two desires: the desire for a lens, longer than the 35, moderately fast for low-light/bokeh for baby portraits, and the future desire to have a 1:1 macro lens. If I get the 60mm, I think it'll be the perfect focal length, but f/2.8 may be not enough, and in the future, 60mm isn't the greatest working distance for macro. I'm just concerned that the 'easy' choice, I may regret later.</p>

<p>If I get the 50 1.4 AF-S, no concerns about speed/bokeh, concerns about close focusing (but as someone pointed out, I could get the little feet/hand pics with the kit lens perhaps), and I'd forgo macro pictures until I save up for the 105 micro.</p>

<p>I did take my 55-200 and set it at 60, 90, and 105 to get a feel for the focal length (the 90, with the Tamron macro in mind). It did feel like 60 was the most flexible working distance. However, I've also rented the 60 before, and what surprised me that it wasn't the most comfy working distance for macro, *even for flower pics*.</p>

<p>Arthur, yeah, I've definately been helping with the preparation. I'm going to assemble the crib this week and install a thermostat in the nursery to keep the baby toasty. Hopefully the wife will have less to complain about, but either way, I'm sure she's not going to like seeing the bills for any photo gear I buy!</p>

[leigh_demshar]

<p>I use the 85 micro on my D90 extensively for baby portraits- for the "detail" shots like the eyes and the lips...love it. Initially rented the 105 which was also great (a little long for my camera), and it was gorgeous, but heavy and mighty pricey.<br>

I also use the 50mm 1.4 as well and the 35mm DX (i forget the aperture off hand) lenses for baby sessions, all which give me good apertures to work with. And these lenses are not super expensive.<br>

Congrats and good luck!<br>

:)</p>

 

[daniel_horande]

<p>Portraiting a new born is not that easy, they cant sit down by themself until about 6 months old or more.</p>

<p>I would go for a Nikon 50 mm. 10 mm is a lot in this situation, and the aperture of this lense will give you great portraits, and then u can still using it for family portrait.<br /><br /><br /></p>

[jose_angel]

<p>Some thoughts:</p>

<ul>

<li>If you go for the 60 you`ll run the risk of demanding a faster 50 and a 105 for macro in a near future.</li>

<li>What is your inmediate project? Buy the right tool if you need it. What will be the next one? Buy the right tool then.</li>

<li>If you want to take pics from closer subjects, buy the best&most useful tool you can for that task.</li>

<li>If you want extremely shallow DoF right now buy a fast 50. </li>

<li>If you want both things, you`ll have to buy both.</li>

<li>I dislike that head portraits where there is only one eye in focus... the other is out of focus because there is a too shallow DoF; it use to mean apertures bigger than f4.</li>

<li>With any lens, fast or not, you can take a pic, but for very close subjects you need either an extension tube or a macro lens. Then the macro lens is indispensable, IMHO.</li>

</ul>

[tim_peacock]

<p>hi, i highly recommend the 50mm 1.4 and a 105 micro. For newborns, those are the only lenses we use. if you can swing it, the d700 is a great camera which can work wonders with high iso. We just posted the top ten camera settings for newborn photography on our blog: <a href="http://www.littlesproutphotography.com/blog/2010/07/what-camera-settings-should-i-use-for-newborn-photography-top-10-tips/">Top Ten Camera Settings for Newborn Photography</a>. If you're interested, take a look, there may be some useful tips. good luck!</p>

[mtmixon]

<p>Congratulations, Philip. My son was born a month ago, and so I know very well the desire to have the right lenses around to photograph him in his different stages of growth (knowing that they go so fast). I have four lenses, all of which I will probably use to photograph him (the Nikon 35/1.8, the Tamron 90/2.8 macro, the Sigma 50-150/2.8 and the Tokina 12-24), but the one I have used exclusively during his first month has been the 35/1.8. It allows me to nice and close, is fast enough to take advantage of natural light, focuses fast, and is small/light enough that I can pick it up and shoot without much effort. I haven't had the need to get any closer and do macro work on his nostrils, nor have I needed to zoom out or in much, seeing as he stays pretty stationary and so I can position myself where I want to be to get the shot I want. Aesthetically, other lenses will give you different looks which you may prefer, but practically, the 35 has served me very well and given me <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=973178">images</a> I (and my wife) really enjoy.<br /> <br /> Regarding maximum aperture, I have definitely taken advantage of the 1.8 - 2.8 range, but have found that I need to compromise on what part of his face is in focus. I can get his eyes very sharp but then his nose and/or mouth might be a little soft. That look works on some photos, but for others, where I want to have his entire face in focus, I've had to dial the aperture down to 4 or 5.6. This usually isn't an issue, unless you have a very busy background that would benefit from some additional blurring. But the nice thing about babies is that you can put them where you want them. :-)<br>

<br /> Enjoy your new baby and have fun taking thousands of pictures.</p>