Best Lens for Children photography

[Marcus Ian]

<blockquote>

<p>So, Marcus, are you implying that "environmental children's portraiture" wasn't done before the advent of autofocus cameras? Imagine having to manually focus children! I shudder at the thought. ;-)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>LOL, clearly! There has <em>never</em> been a decent shot of a child taken before the advent of USM lenses! ...ok, maybe I was being a bit harsh ;-) I guess perhaps I should have written: <em>"Not a huge deal for <strong>staged or set</strong> portraiture, but for environmental children's portraiture, the 1.2L II (much less, gawd forbid, the mk I) is very nearly useless<strong> to me</strong>."</em><br /><br /><br>

Certainly the ability to capture a child in motion, or, more specifically, during that moment <em>between</em> moving fast in one direction, and moving fast in the <em>other</em> direction has improved with blinding fast USM lenses. My use of the 85/1.2L(II and I) was/is limited, and I am used to using the 85/1.8 USM -which is <em>much</em> faster. But even though the II <em>approaches</em> usable speeds (my favorite scene is a playground, or while the kids are 'at play'), it <em>constantly</em> left me with nothing good, because in the split second that the kids pause, I've got to focus (and focus precisely if using shallow DOF), and get a shot or two off. After <em>missing</em> the umpteenth shot <em>I would have had w/ my 85/1.8,</em> I became very frustrated. I've shot with it several times since (a friend owns one), but I don't bother if there is any potential for considerable movement from the subject...</p>

<p>... IDK, like I said if you are doing staged portraits it is absolutely beautiful, but it just couldn't give me anything while 'at play'. Kids are very poor actors (no offense!), so I've found that allowing them to be 'at play' gives me the widest range of expressions, character, and personality to work with -especially if they've got siblings/friends to play with... no coaching is often required. I generally use the 85/1.8 or 70-200/2.8. Both are considerably faster (AF) than the 85/1.2II, and that difference in focus speed is <em>huge, (</em>for <em>my</em> shooting). ;-)</p>

[john_macpherson]

<p>Hey folks - I have NO idea how I managed to get multiple 85 f1.8 posts! That was NOT intentional!</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Good Lord, look at all the discussion. </p>

<p>What's the perfect lens for this? 70-200mm can't be beat. Are kids scared of it? I don't think so, but maybe some photogs are:</p>

<p><a title="Watermelon with hair. Yum! by dcstep, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7107/7867766722_ea2b4a6c3b_c.jpg" alt="Watermelon with hair. Yum!" width="800" height="800" /></a></p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>You have to use AI Servo to get moving shots in focus using the fast primes wide open. If you don't none of your shots will be in focus.</p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>Like many worthwhile things, it takes technical knowledge and a huge amount of practice to use these tools to their full potential.</p>

[tdigi]

<p>A 35 or 50 prime sounds like it would fit your needs.</p>

[tdigi]

<p>double post</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>i was taking photos of children at a birthday party (friends party and i was just a guest playing with my camera) and found that <strong><em>i like the separation of the 100 mm macro, </em></strong>but the speed of focus was not enough. <strong><em>I took out my 24-70 and found the focus OK but the separation wasn't there.</em></strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /><br /><br />They are both F/2.8 lenses: whilst the Bokeh might be different @ F/2.8 between both lenses, the separation available to you, is virtually identical.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[tdigi]

<blockquote>

<p>The past year or so I have really been leaning on the 135L as well.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is one lens I am really dying to try. Seems so many sell it to get the 70-200 2.8 IS II but I did not care for the bulk of that lens so I may have to give one a try. Great stuff Ian.</p>

[sravan]

<p>Thanks for all the advice. I will try to play with the 100 mm L macro lens focus limiter to see if the speed increases to something that works for me. I am learning and better focus speed i am sure will increase my keepers while i work on my timing which comes only with practice.<br>

<br />William,<br>

24-70 vs 100, the separation was very noticeable for me. I stood at the same distance and then background separation is not the same. Dont know why but the look of the background is different.</p>

<p>I will try the 70-200 also and see how it works.</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>I <em><strong>stood at the same distance</strong></em> and then background separation is not the same. Dont know why but the look of the background is different.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>That’s a difference caused by the SHOOTING DISTANCE using DIFFERENT FOCAL LENGTHS – not the lenses, per se.<br>

They are both F/2.8 Lenses and therefore the DoF (or the effect of DoF on background separation) will be the same if the FRAMING is the same and the Aperture is the same.<br>

Certainly the Background will appear ‘different’ as more of it is in the shot (the wider lens you use)</p>

<p>WW </p>

[mirek_elsner1]

<p>Which lens is best depends on your style. Do you want the children to be part of the process, or do you want to be unnoticed? Do you use flash indoors? My favorites were: <br>

35L for indoors. At 1/60s I did not have to worry about camera blur and it was usually enough for slow action like painting or playing with toys. F/1.4 provides some background separation if needed. And the focal length is not too short to introduce distortion and at the same time short enough to evoke the feeling that the viewer is part of the action.<br>

85L was a good counterpart when longer focal length was practical. I think 85/1.8 might be actually even better, due to its faster AF and shorter MFD. The 85L has MFD that is too far for portraits of babies. <br>

50L is in between and I used it often, too. It was my favorite lens for the first weeks or months. <br>

As the kids grow, they become more mobile and zoom with fast AF becomes very practical for outdoor photography. I liked 16-35 and perhaps the 24-70 would be even better. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>This weekend i was taking photos of children at a birthday party (friends party and i was just a guest playing with my camera) and found that i like the separation of the 100 mm macro, but the speed of focus was not enough. I took out my 24-70 and found the focus OK but the separation wasn't there. I also felt that the 100 mm was just a tad too long for the space i had at the party.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you are looking for a lens with similar focal length, great separation and very fast AF, look at 135L. If you don't mind the size and weight, 70-200 IS will do more or less the same service (except the smooth bokeh) and more. </p>

[mirek_elsner1]

<blockquote>

<p>Dont know why but the look of the background is different.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Provided that you used the same focal length and f-stop, the look of the background depends on design of the lens. For example, the level of correction of some optical aberrations has impact on look of the out of focus areas. Another factor is the number and shape of aperture blades. I believe the 85L employs some other design tricks to achieve shallow depth of field and smooth background blur.<br /> Some lenses will therefore show smoother background blur than others.</p>