Best focal length for D7000 baby and pet pics

[pavan_nagaraj1]

<p>Hi Folks,<br />I am going to be getting a D7000 body only along with the 35mm f1.8 DX lens and wanted your feedback regarding which lens to get to accompany the 35mm. In the near future, I will be using the camera mainly to take pictures of my newborn (expected Sept) and my cat in natural light. I have used an entry level DSLR for a number of years (mostly nature pics). <br /><br />- Is the 35mm DX good for baby pictures?<br>

- What focal lengths work best for photographing babies?<br>

- Will the new 50mm f1.8 or the 60mm f2.8 Micro be a better second lens to get? Or should I skip both these and just save up for a 105mm micro for its better working distance?<br /><br />Will eventually be needing a lens for landscape and a telephoto zoom for general wildlife. (Will wait to see if the AF 80-400mm gets an upgrade by year end before deciding). Suggestions on that front are also welcome.<br /><br />Finally what software should I get for processing RAW images? Is Lightroom 3 sufficient or is Capture NX advised?<br /><br />Thanks!<br />Pavan</p>

[jean_yves_mead]

Why a macro lens? You don't seem interested in close-up work. As for what focal length works best, that's down to your personal preferences.

 

Newborn babies are easy - they don't do anything. For about 23 hours a day you could photograph one with a pinhole camera without worrying about subject motion. All I would suggest is that you make sure you have a cellphone with a reasonably good camera, since the little monsters love to come out at the most awkward time and it's likely that you'll be too busy trying to get to hospital and avoid panic, to remember to pick up your camera bag. From experience I can assure you that you'll have far more important things on your mind than whether or not you remembered to put in a new memory card.

 

Once they start to move, shooting with natural light indoors really warrants f/2.8 or faster (I tend to find that I use f/1.4-capable lenses most of the time when chasing down my rugrats); probably the best present you could give yourself is a good tilt-and-swivel flashgun and the practice to use it effectively. I've noticed that I tend to shoot at a DX-equivalent focal length of 50mm or longer so as not to intrude on my children's play; if I want to get into the middle of things then anything from 8mm up is fine.

[jose_angel]

<p>There are many threads in this topic; just search for "baby" in the Nikon forum. Recently, a similar thread: <em><a href="00YtzK">Newborn Photography</a></em>.</p>

<p>For baby pics I`m more fond of macro lenses. A 105 will let you to shoot at more confortable shooting distances. My shorter-than-105 Micro-Nikkors remain unused since a long time ago.</p>

<p>I also find "standard" focal lenghts pretty useful for everything. On DX, a 35mm prime sounds very good to me.</p>

<p>I prefer NX2 over anything else. I also have Aperture 2 and an older version of PS, but almost everything I currently shoot is processed in NX2.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>For pets, you need a zoom that AFs pretty fast.</p>

<p>They move... a LOT... (I'm sure you've noticed that.) When they do settle down, great stuff can happen.</p>

[pavan_nagaraj1]

<p>Thanks for your responses.<br /> I am not planning to even take the camera to the hospital :) so the cell phone or a p&s will have to do for those.<br /> I had thought of getting the 35mm for its fast aperture and because it is a normal equivalent on a DX, so that I could use it for general pics and get used to a prime lens and the camera before the baby comes. I have read that the D7000 has a steep learning curve for someone coming in from an entry level camera and in my case a non-Nikon one. I was interested in getting the Macro lens for close up pics of the baby as well as for nature work later. Ideally I would like to get the 105mm micro nikkor as well. The price is the only reason I hesitate to get it along with the camera at this time. <br /> I may get a fast zoom for when the little one is older and is moving around as fast as the cat... likely chasing it :). But will have to save up for it.<br /> I had asked the same question on another forum and the 60mm micro-nikkor was suggested as an option that may cover both fronts, a relatively fast 2.8 aperture and close focus ability. Don't want to get the 60mm 2.8 and find it lacking for general purpose pics as it will be fairly long on the DX crop. What are your thoughts?</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>I think the 35mm will do fine. The 60 micro is an excellent lens and will let you take tighter close-ups. IMO a 105mm on a DX camera is too long for indoor people photography but it's a great focal length for outdoor close-ups of nature.</p>

[jose_angel]

<blockquote>

<p><em>I have read that the D7000 has a steep learning curve for someone coming in from an entry level camera and in my case a non-Nikon one.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don`t believe it. Even a pro camera like the D3 series can be used by someone who knows nothing about photography... just use an "auto-everything" mode (and you can read how to select this mode in a basic instructions sheet provided with the camera). Another topic is to learn photography and how to achieve the results you may like using a very complex and/or capable tool... something harder to learn in comparison to just releasing the shutter of a basic camera that are only "usable" in that "auto-everything" mode.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>the 60mm micro-nikkor was suggested as an option that may cover both fronts, a relatively fast 2.8 aperture and close focus ability.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>True. A f2.8 lens can be considered fast enough for most realistic needs, in fact most PJs all over the world use almost exclusively f2.8 zooms. Close focus ability is something always desiderable.<br /> But don`t forget that close focus limit that maximum aperture. At shorter distances, macro lenses use to be slower. A f2.8 could need maybe 1.5-2 meters to work as a true f2.8 lens. At one meter, it could be a f3.2 lens, not f2.8 (aproximately).</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Don't want to get the 60mm 2.8 and find it lacking for general purpose pics as it will be fairly long on the DX crop. What are your thoughts?</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><a name="pagebottom"></a><br /> Agree. A 60mm lens on DX act as a "short tele" kind of lens, that is, long enough to find it too limiting in a "one-only" lens.</p>

<p>One lens doesn`t do all. To my taste at least three focal lenghts are needed. A fast 35 will cover the standard range, a 60 (or even a 105 for your "baby purpose") the longer one, and you`ll find that you may need something shorter for that indoor shots (or too wide subjects).</p>

<p>When I was on DX I used to use two lenses; a 17-55 and a 105VR (add a 24mm prime for casual lightweight shooting).</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>a good choice here might be the 28-105 which is faster on the long end (4.5) than any of nikon's kit zooms as well as the 16-85 and 18-200, and does 1:2 macro. you can get them used for fairly cheap. otherwise, the 35 is pretty good for general indoor shooting. anything longer wouldn't be my first choice in a one-lens setup on DX. a 60, 70, 90 or 105 macro would let you go to 1:1. i'd also think about something like the 85/1.8. and, just to make the choices more difficult, there's the tokina 35/2.8, which focuses extremely close and works as both a normal and a macro lens on DX. it's sharper wide-open than the 35 is @2.8, but of course it doesn't go to f/1.8. there's really no right or wrong choice here, since it all depends on approach. also, newborns are generally incapable of taking bad pictures. :)</p>

<p> </p>

[moussa_seck]

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=6187339">Pavan Nagaraj</a> here is a link that may help with the baby photos: <a href="http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=15244&pq-locale=en_US&_requestid=39161">http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=15244&pq-locale=en_US&_requestid=39161</a><br>

I think you will be fine with the 35. I would lean toward something like a 17/18-50/55 if you are buying a new lens because you will need to include the baby mommy and family in the pics.<br>

Congrat and take a lot of photos.</p>

 

[pavan_nagaraj1]

<p>Thanks everyone for the great feedback.<br /> Jose, Thanks for the detailed response. I did not know about the max aperture changing in a Macro. That is good info to keep in mind, especially since I am looking for the shallow DoF for the baby pictures. Moussa, thanks for that link. Some cool tips there that will be really helpful.<br /> I had not initially set out to find a one lens solution, so took a step back and looked at what you all have said and what would be most practical for me.<br /><br />Based on all your inputs and some additional reading (and on what I can afford right now), I am thinking of getting the following: Nikkor 50mm 1.8/1.4 specifically for the portrait FL for the baby pictures (longer than 35mm and more in the traditional portrait range) and Sigma 17-50mm OS HSM for general purpose pictures. As for the macro, I will decide based on its utility as a macro and not necessarily as a dual use lens. But will only do so after I have borrowed or rented them and tried out how well they work for me.<br /> Here is a good thread on the sigma 17-50mm 2.8 OS on flickr (http://www.flickr.com/groups/d7000-club/discuss/72157626708904295/)<br /><br />At this point getting hold of a D7000 may be more of a challenge than the lenses. I will keep you posted as to what I get and how it works out.</p>