Lenses for 5D MK II or MK III – Portraiture of New Born/Kids

[flying_tiger]

<p>Hi, I’m expecting my first child and I want to take the opportunity to update my photo gears in anticipating our new born. Very excited!<br>

I’d like to see some suggestions on building a DSLR system around Canon 5D II or III that can be used mainly for portraiture of kids/family for the next 3-5 years. Below are what I’ve been using in the past 10 years or so – both 35mm film and medium format:<br>

<strong>35mm film</strong> (never owned a DSLR so far; ever used 5D and 60D for travel):<br>

EOS 3 with 28-70/2.8L, 70-200/4L, 300/4L IS, 1.4X teleconverter, EX550 speedlite;<br>

I intend to replace the 70-200/4L with a couple of prime lenses and have the following in mind: 50/1.4, 85/1.8, 100/2.8L IS Macro, 135/2L (too long a focal length for portrait indoor home?) or 85/1.2L MK II (too expensive, heavy and slow focusing for capturing motions of baby/kids?). Optical performance and AF speed will dictate my choice. <br>

Alternatively, I might consider the 70-200/2.8L IS MKII but it’s much heavier and bigger than my current 70-200/4L non IS. What’ll I gain if I get the 70-200/2.8 IS II? For portraiture, I opt for faster lenses (f2.8 or faster). FYI, I ever owned the 70-200/2.8 non IS but replaced it with 70-20//4L due to its size/weight for travel. Beautiful lens but on the big/heavy side. I imagine the 70-200/2.8 IS II is even bigger and heavier.<br>

<strong>Medium Format:</strong> Hasselblad 503CW, 120/4 CFi Makro and 50/4 CFi FLE for black&white film, B&W and color slides. No intention to get MF digital back. For digital, I’ll stay with 35mm.<br>

BTW, I know Zeiss offers a wide range manual focus prime lenses (50/1.4, 85/1.4, 100/2, 135/2 APO, 21/2.8, 35/1.4, 35/2.0, 25/2.0, etc) for Canon EF EOS mount. When are they manufactured? Japan or Germany? Are any of them superior in optical quality/color rendition to Canon’s offerings? Any hands-on experience with them? <br>

Thanks for your input.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Hi Flying (sorry... couldn't resist),</p>

<p>Congrats on your soon-to-be new arrival! Mine came in the film age, and with as many pics as I shot of mine, I can't imagine how many shots new parents take in the digital age!</p>

<p>My advice to you would be rather general. It's tempting to say that for this special child you will need nothing but the finest, fastest, etc. -- e.g. a Zeiss manual focus 50mm f/1.4. You're wanting to freeze action in very low light with tack sharp images from corner to corner. Do I get this right? However, there are almost always tradeoffs:</p>

<p>If you are worried about freezing motion, then the movement of the child closer and farther from the camera is surely an equally, if not more important concern. (You point this out.) How are you going to track this movement with manual focus CZ and its razor thin depth of field, still having an in-focus child? IMO, you need a fast and good AF system, preferably ring USM.</p>

<p>Then there's the whole prime vs. zoom thing: When you have a newborn, he or she will stay in the same place long enough for you to frame up and shoot your photo. However, as soon as the child becomes mobile, he or she will be everywhere. Shooting with a prime then becomes somewhat difficult, as your best perspective is from the ground. If the child moves closer or farther away, you'll either have to retreat/chase or zoom. Zooming is far less conspicuous (less distraction to the child) and faster to execute. Let's forget that it's also easier, because many people agree that photography should be hard. (a bit of sarcasm)</p>

<p>Either the 5DII or 5DIII will give you excellent low light capabilities, so I don't really think you NEED a fast prime, vs. a slower zoom, for the speed. A prime might give you shallower depth of field, and perhaps that's what you'd like to achieve. Fair enough. Otherwise, a prime's sharpness advantage is utterly lost if you're trying to compare a good prime's f/1.4 with a good zoom's f/4.0. So be certain you understand your needs.</p>

<p>I see you use a 550EX, so you're not terrified of flash. I would suggest you put the flash on a radio slave and trigger it remotely. Just have it throw some light into the room by bouncing it off of a wall. That bright spot on the wall becomes like a window with soft sunlight. If you have colored walls, bounce the light off of a sheet of foam core. Just like you don't move your windows around the room, you don't have to move the flash and foam core. Having flash will lessen the performance demands on your camera and lenses, and it will actually improve the color rendition. Food for thought.</p>

<p>If it were my child, I'd use a 70-200 IS (either /2.8 or /4) and either one of the 24-70 or 24-105 lenses, plus a fast prime for occasional shallow depth of field work, probably in the short telephoto range (maybe 100 or 135, depending on how much space you have).</p>

<p> </p>

[JDMvW]

<p>If you want an excuse to get a new system before the money all runs out, then now is the time, although in my personal experience a decent quality, all-in-one point and shoot is really the thing for the first 4 or 5 years. My more professional gear was hardly out of the cupboard until we got to the Disneyworld stage....<br>

Just throw it in the diaper pack and you're set for nearly anything. </p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>In my experience, using my skill as a shooter to capture unique, evocative moments in my children's lives is something that tangibly improves my own quality of life. I respect JDM's point, but I disagree, with a few possible exceptions (now, not then) I found that a DSLR gave the (very nearly) highest IQ (esp in adverse light), fastest focus, and widest range of options in regards to lenses (especially fast ones! !).</p>

<p>I can look back now, and find images that I love but are simply not physically possible to capture w/o fast glass, and a fast body. For what you seem to be describing, you seem to be on the right track lens wise. I'd make a few comments though...</p>

<p>The EF 50/1.4 is a good lens, but not if you want decent IQ WO. If you feel you are likely to be shooting a 50 WO, The Sigma 50/1.4 is much better choice (IMO). </p>

<p>Also, while the 85/1.2L is of adequate AF speed for the first 6mo, by the 'age of exploration' (ie. ~10mo+) it is simply to slow to reliably get you where you need to be, especially if your child turns out to be one of the 'fast movers'. Instead I'd go w/ the 85/1.8. The Sig 85/1.4 HSM is better optically, and similar AF wise, but also 2.5x the price for a minimal improvement. </p>

<p>For this kind of shooting, strictly speaking, a 100/2.8 Macro isn't a 'necessary' lens (IMO), but will give you the ability to do 1:1 Macro stuff, like hands and fingers, feet, toes, etc. So maybe it's worth it to you. The 135/2 However<em> is</em> absolutely necessary ;-) , there is a reason it is a legend. May be a little long for indoor stuff (depending on the indoors, and the stuff), but the minute the kid sits on the lawn, it'll be your go-to-prime... worth it absolutely.</p>

<p>Good luck!</p>

[dcstep]

<p>I own the 5D MkIII and used to own the 5D MkII. I'd suggest Canon's excellent EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM. It's an excellent and flexible lens that can be used in most situations, day or night, given the 5D's excellent high-ISO performance. Combine with Digital Lens Optimization software, such as is shipped with the new cameras and is part of Digital Photo Professional. DLO software, removes geometric errors, corrects for vignetting, corrects for softness, corrects for chromatic aberration, etc. at every focal length and every aperture. The results will be excellent and take you into a new territory compared to your experience using zoom lenses with film.</p>

[stp]

<p>I thought I had the most photographed kid in the world.....until I met other photographers. My years of joy happened many years ago, and all I can do is to tell you what I would do now if I were in your shoes (and also considering the brief background you provided).</p>

<p>Kids grow up very fast. That little bundle who doesn't move except when carried will soon be tearing around the house, and then around the yard. I'd be looking for equipment that could handle that degree of change.</p>

<p>You didn't say which of the two bodies you were intending to get, but I'd tend toward the newer technology (especially better focusing) with the 5D3.</p>

<p>I never shoot without a tripod, but I also don't photograph children. I would want the ability to stabilize a lens without having to resort to a tripod if I did photograph children. For that reason, I'd be favoring IS lenses over non-IS lenses if possible. Similarly, I'd be favoring zooms over fixed focal length lenses in general, especially for the majority of years your child will be mobile.</p>

<p>For a primary lens, I'd tend toward the 24-105mm IS primarily because of the IS (I've only owned the 24-70mm w/o IS because of reported somewhat better IQ, but as I said, I depend on a tripod). I think the 70-200mm f/2.8 II IS is a stellar lens, and I like the extra speed over the f/4 (I have the f/4 IS); I'd want the 2.8 II IS for both the speed and the IS in addition to the high IQ. The weight of the lens would not be an issue with me in photographing my son's early years. I'd guess those two lenses would get 90%+ of the shots you will take of your child. For the special portraits, I'd want to have a fast prime, and those that I would consider are the 50mm f/1.2, 85mm f/1.8 (maybe the f/1.2, which I have, but it's slow and expensive compared to the 1.8; however, I disagree with those who suggest the f/1.2 is too slow for moving children, and I also think it's a wonderful lens....but so is the f/1.8), or 135mm f/2 (another wonderful lens). I think the 50mm is a bit short, so I'd tend toward the 85mm or 135mm.</p>

<p>I think it's good you're comfortable with flash and know how to use it well. I never was, and some of my photographs of my son as a baby and toddler show that limitation.</p>

<p>Wow, those were good years, perhaps the best of my life. I'm happy for you.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>I currently use a dual format kit (5DII and 7D), and my main subjects are my children, now almost three and six, whom I've photographed since birth. I have had success with the following lenses in this regard:</p>

<p>35/1.4 L - An excellent lens for more "environmental" portraiture; it's very sharp at wide apertures, thus very good in low available light.</p>

<p>50/1.4 - A real workhorse, and not as bad at wider apertures as it's reputed to be. True, it's contrast drops when wide open, but its resolution remains relatively high.</p>

<p>85/1.2 L II - There is no substitute for low available light portraiture. I use it wide open for my daughter's piano recitals, and the contrast and sharpness are outstanding (as is the bokeh). It <em>is</em> relatively slow focusing, so the 85/1.8 would be a good alternative for you.</p>

<p>24-70/2.8 L II - An outstandingly sharp, high contrast zoom with a very versatile focal length for child portraiture. Yes, I wish it had IS, and it's not as fast as my primes, but its IQ is so good that I may well not have acquired most of the shorter primes I have had I had the zoom first.</p>

<p>70-200/4 L IS - My main lens for walkabout shooting, and for photographing my kids outdoors. It's IQ is so good that I simply almost never use my 135/2 L or 200/2.8 L. Of course I would like a 70-200/2.8 L IS II, but the light weight portability of the f/4 zoom is a real advantage.</p>

<p>I hope this helps.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Yes, well, if <em>your</em> photography is very important to <em>you</em>, I suppose.</p>

<p>But is this how you want your child to remember you?</p><div></div>

[ferling]

<p>Well, five kids later, I have agree with JDM on a decent point and shoot in the years prior to them running. I still have the Canon G5 from my last two kids (both still in elementary school). The G5 was also a good one for the wife to use. A fast 2.0 lens and manual settings were sufficient for most needs. This compared to my first two girls, when I had a T50 35mm film body and FD lenses, (including the FD 50 f1.4). Trying to juggle a few kids, bags and strollers with a heavy DSLR and long lens hanging from my neck, banging around was a hassle in the first few years.</p>

<p>Now when they get older and are on the move, then the DSLR is absolutely necessary, and Marcus is correct about the EF 135 f2L , (and the 100 f2.8 macro is a close second). Think sports. Images of the kids in squirt gun fights, on the faster rides, or even on a swing allows only brief seconds to get the shot. Once they get involved in sports, will you find a non-work excuse to convince the wife to buy the 70-200 L. :) </p><div></div>

[ferling]

<p>My little 'Karate Kid' on the swing. Canon 7D, 135 f2L.</p><div></div>

[ferling]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"But is this how you want your child to remember you?" - JDM</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />LOL. A good point. However, if you've seen how vacant the parks are in my neck of the woods, you wonder where are all the Dad's taking their kids? If photography is the excuse, that still works. :)</p><div></div>

[dan_south]

<p>You already have the lenses that you need, particularly the 28-70 and the 70-200 f/4L. Put the money you'd spend on Zeiss lenses into a college fund. If you want shallow depth of field, get in close with the 70-200.</p>

<p>A used 5DII for about $1300US would be a fine choice. Maybe sell your current flash eventually and pick up the 600RT (or two) and the radio controller along with umbrellas and light stands. Lighting is more important than fancy glass for baby pictures.</p>

<p>Buy a copy of Lightroom or Aperture and start learning how to use it now. When your child arrives, you're not going to have any spare time.</p>

<p>Per David Stephens, yes, the 24-105 f/4L IS is a very handy lens. Maybe sell your 28-70 and pick up this lens.</p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>I photograph kids for a living. I use 5DMK2 with 35L, 85L and 135L for most of it. I also like the 24-70 and 70-200 2.8 IS when conditions dictate. There is no right or wrong, just rent some lenses and check them out.<br>

<a href="http://www.facebook.com/IanTaylorPhotography">Some samples on my page here</a>. </p>

[michael_h4]

<blockquote>

<p><em>There is no right or wrong, just rent some lenses and check them out.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ian's advice worth trying while you still have time. You probably will use plenty of different cameras and lenses as your child grows up. I personally believe that the key to capturing those memorable moments is having equipment that you're comfortable using. Gear that's cumbersome to set up or a pain to carry has a habit of not being around when you most want it. The perfect camera & lens stay out of your way and let you compose. Check out Ian's photos of children: They show that composition and a sense of the moment make all the difference. (They're great shots!)<br>

</p>

[flying_tiger]

<p>Hi guys, thanks so much for your feedbacks and suggestions. I'll definitely explore those options and combinations. Well, it's interesting that Dan brought up the topic of lighting setup at home for photographing kids/babies. I was thinking about setting up a simple studio lighting in our family room and wonder if what would be a good starting point. Could someone chip in on home studio setup by recommending some lighting, reflection, flash, etc? <br>

As to the 24-105/4L IS lens some of you recommended, I was hesitating about it. FYI, I ever owned the 17-40/4L briefly and sold it because it's not sharp enough or has great color rendition comparing with my 28-70/2.8L. Not sure if the 24-105/4L IS is more like the 17-40 or the 28-70/2.8 in terms of optical quality. Also, 24-105 has many instances of sample variances. <br>

In addition, I don't intend to replace 28-70/2.8L with the newer 24-70/2.8L II, which is more that double the price and bigger and heavier. </p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>If you have the 24-70 you are good to go. A 50 1.8 or 1.4 is a nice extra. Of course you can use lots of other fancy primes too, but these will do everything you need. Personally, I think a special lighting setup/studio means you take pics of your child that will look precisely like he/she was shot in a studio or at least not in your normal space and hence non-spontaneous. It depends what you like, but I prophecy that if you get all that lighting, softboxes and stuff you will wonder why you bothered after a few years. I am speaking from experience, but everyone is different.</p>

[model mayhem gallery]

<p>I think you already have everything you need. In terms of wants and money is not an issue can't go wrong with a Canon 5D III and the new 24-70 F2.8 II. This would set you for the next 5 years easily. Alternatively, you might go with cheap zooms Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VR and Tamron 70-300 F4 -5.6 VR and add good primes 85 1.2L II is excellent portrait lens.<br>

However, I believe lighting makes a bigger difference in portrait work than camera and lenses. With good lighting and just about any Camera and lens at F8 you can get pretty good results.</p>

[pbizarro]

<p>I concur with others, you already have the lenses you need. I would only suggest getting a prime lens in the vicinity of 35mm or 50mm focal length, for family groups, or single person photos, when the light is low, or you want a bit more isolation from the background.<br>

I also think you should consider video, and in this regard, something like the new set of primes lenses, with IS (24, 28, 35mm) may come in useful.</p>

[pbizarro]

<p>I concur with others, you already have the lenses you need. I would only suggest getting a prime lens in the vicinity of 35mm or 50mm focal length, for family groups, or single person photos, when the light is low, or you want a bit more isolation from the background.<br>

I also think you should consider video, and in this regard, something like the new set of primes lenses, with IS (24, 28, 35mm) may come in useful.</p>