Children photography

[ike k]

Hi,

 

I just got my 1v my fisrt canon ever and would like your

recommendation on lens for children portrait photography.I'm

considering a 70-200/f.4L or 135/f.2 and 85/f1.8.Which one is more

suitable guys? considering i will need a fast auto focus on each

aperture, do you think to loose a one extra stop on the zoom but with

price is lower for the 70-200 is a better choice since it is a zoom

lens? about sharpness, contrasity between these two or the 85 one?

Thank you and all advise is really appreciate.Have a nice day!!!!!

 

 

IKE

[emaxxman]

Are the kids going to sit still for the portrait shots? If not, then I would opt for the 70-200. The extra range will allow you to compose quickly. I'm quite sure the af speed of the 1v and the zoom should be plenty for the kids...unless they're speed addicts. :-)

[sean1]

I actually use a 28-135 IS but I'm outside chasing them around the beach most of the time. Works great for me. The 70-200 is just a bit too long to be running down the beach after someone.

 

8)

sean

[citizensmith1664875108]

I use a 50 f/1.8 and 100 f/2 for portraits. Sure they are faster than the 70-200 f/4 and optically have a very slight edge, but my kids are 3 and 1. Boy would a zoom be useful, and that is a very good zoom.

 

It's a toss up, but given the choice I'd probably go with the zoom. I was limited by available funds so that did stear my decision considerably. I didn't have the extra cash for the 70-200 over the 100, and if I'd waited and tried to save up it would have just got spent on my computer instead. :)

[d_y]

Tough question, Ike.

 

On the bright side, you've narrowed your options down to some very good lenses. You can't *really* make a mistake 8).

 

As others have mentioned, it might come down to how you'll be using the lens. Chasing after your kids with the 70-200mm might be a problem, and you'll be rather conspicuous with that bright white lens around your neck.

 

You'll probably want to use this lens for other purposes besides taking pictures of your kids. Would any of these lens choices be the better fit for other subject matter?

 

I've owned the 85mm and loved that lens, when I used it. The problem was, that I just did not use that lens enough to justify keeping it. I did use my 70-200mm f/4 a lot, and I decided to keep that lens. If you don't have to make such choices, then why not have them both! 8P

 

The 85mm is very easy to handle, focuses reasonably close, and can take a 58mm close-up and soft-focus filters if you choose. The 70-200mm has the 67mm filter size (you'll have to spend more on a close-up and soft-focus filters) and I don't believe that it focuses as close, which could be a problem indoors. For my usage, I did not find the stop difference to be a problem.

[fredus]

are close up filters really going to help in child portrait ?? I can understand the soft focus but for the close up filter, I'm wonderding ... Aren't those used for Macro ?

 

For my daughter portrait (5 months old) I use currently the 85 f/1.8. She doesn't move that much and a prime is perfect right now. I've just bought the 70-200 F/4 so I'm ready when she starts to crawl ... :-)

 

Fred

[michael_gatton]

Close-up lens with 50mm, if I remember correctly.

[michael_gatton]

Just trying to figure out this inline image thing...

 

<img height=316

width=474 hspace=5 vspace=10 src="image?bboard_upload_id=12761184">

[yakim_peled1]

I was in your shoes once. I thought about buying the 85/1.8 USM and 135/2 USM L but was tempted to buy the 70-200/4 USM L as everyone is so happy with it (see http://www.photographyreview.com/35mm,Zoom/Canon,EF,70-200mm,f4L,USM/PRD_84503_3128crx.aspx). The 135/2 USM L alone is more expensive. However, after only one month of use I sold it. The ability to quickly frame is immensely important when you don't have enough time to change lenses or move with your feet. I mostly shoot my kids and they move MUCH faster then I can. On those times I care less if the focal length is (e.g.) 70mm or 85mm or 100mm and care more to get the proper framing. As someone who has not yet migrated to digital - no DSLR or even a scanner - this is very important to me.

 

Why did I sell it ? For two reasons.

 

1. I found that f/4 at 200mm is limiting when lights get low. For me, handheld ability is a must and a tripod is out of the question. Maybe a monopod.

 

2. I found that f/4 and f/5.6 sharpness was below my expectations. I got better sharpness from my 50/1.8 at 1.8 !!! Yes, I know that the consensus is that this it a great lens but my sample was nowhere near to what others described. Did I get a lemon ? Maybe but the guy I sold it to was extremely happy. Does it have to do with the fact that he uses a DSLR while I use a film one ? I really don't know. Is it because I am used to primes while his other lens was 28-200 ? Again, I don't know.

 

Anyway, as I like the great framing ability of the zoom, I'm going to give the 70-200/2.8 USM L IS a try.

 

Because of point #1, I would not buy today the f/4 zoom. If I were to buy primes, I'd buy the 85/1.8 and debate between the 135/2 and 200/2.8, for the longer reach. A zoom and not the 70-200/2.8 USM L IS ? I'd go for the 70-200/2.8 USM L non-IS.

 

Happy shooting ,

Yakim.

[eos 10 fan]

I put together a kit for my SO last year for shooting (mostly) the little tyke (now 3).

 

The 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 USM and 35-135mm f/4-5.6 USM were her choices: she choose the 35-135/USM for the longer reach (R2K/300 body). The other zoom in her bag is the 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM.

 

For low light, where the body & zoom falter, we use a 50mm f/1.8 - the lowlight stuff is usualy indoors so the shorter focal length is not really an issue. For shots of a highly mobile subject the zoom is a treat - sometime in the future I hope to upgrade her 35-135/USM to a 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM.

 

--