jan_m

<p>I have definitely heard a lot of great things about the 85 1.8 lens, but am just worried that it may be a little too long on my crop body camera (Rebel), especially indoors. There are times even with my 50 1.8 lens that I fight for space indoors and cant capture the shot I need due to not having the room to back up enough.<br>

That was a very interesting link with the comparison of lenses, but also I noticed that I can't select my body for the lenses. I know lenses behave differently on different cameras.<br>

In any case it seems to be my understanding that the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is at the very least a totally great replacement for the kit lens (although a very expensive one), but there are better choices for portraits specifically. I think I just might have to rent some of the lenses out there to see what might work best. If I had an unlimitted budget, I'd probably drop 5 grand and just get all the lenses recommended, but I have to have a limit SOMEwhere, so therefore I have to pick and choose carefully...</p>

<p>Very interesting responses so far. To answer some of the questions asked - I only have the 50 1.8 lens that I use for portraits and the kit lens as a walk around - which is of course easier to use when I want to capture more of the scenery.<br>

I shoot mostly young kids, who won't stay put. Which means I have to follow them around (in a park etc) and using a tripod in this manner is not easy. I have to be fast and capture shots quickly, changing my position all the time. For this reason the IS in this lens sounds very exciting. I would love to have a lens that can allow me to capture beautiful environmental portraits that capture the details of the environment, as well as a lens that can also produce nice close-ups with a beautifully blurred background when needed. Currently that would mean, needing to keep changing lenses constantly - once again, not always convenient when I am on the move capturing photos of a busy child.<br>

I do love the 50 1.8 and the beautiful portraits it can produce, but it works at its best when the subject is stationary and will pose or at least freeze for a second, so I can compose the shot (preferrably have the camera on a tripod) and get my photo. The fact that this lens is fixed makes me run around a whole lot more - not necessarily a bad thing, but sometimes I miss a good moment because I realize I am too close to capture it, and by the time I get back far enough, the moment is gone. Or sometimes, there's no space to back up enough. With a zoom, I can just immediately get the camera set up the way I need it for a particular shot.<br>

I imagine that the perfect lens is a pipe dream, but I am just looking for a lens that will make the type of shooting I do a whole lot easier and produce consistently good results. For a lens that costs as much as the 17-55 f2.8 IS, of course it better be a WHOLE lot better to be worth it. But like I said, the IS it has definitely sounds tempting since I shoot hand held 99% of the time, the promise of producing better shots indoors as well in low light conditions sound great to me too. But it would certainly be somewhat of a dissappointment if the cheap 50 1.8 lens produces by far superior portraits (with better bokeh and sharpness of the subject)</p>

<p>I am curious to know if AI Servo mode (for Canon cameras) is the best setting for photographing young children and toddlers on the move who won't pose for shots. Does anyone have better luck when setting their camera to this mode for sharp crisp pictures?</p>

<p>I just wanted to know people's opinion for anyone who owns this lens in terms of how it does for portraits, and especially in comparison to the cheap 50mm 1.8 lens.<br>

I own the prime lens and really love it, so of course upgrading to this very expensive zoom should mean that at the very least my images should be just as good. I am thinking about the zoom to be an all around lens and of course replace the kit lens, and from what I have heard/read the IS is pretty nice on it too. But my main focus is potraits - especially portraits of toddlers/children. I want a lens that can produce outstanding quality for portraits - sharp, crisp images with good bokeh.<br>

I would be very glad to hear opinions from those who have used this lens for that purpose - and especially if they can compare it to the prime 50mm 1.8.</p>

<p>Oops, it just hit me, you ARE the dad. Just have mom pose the baby for the photos (with regards to above post) :)</p>

<p>One month olds are certainly hard to pose. They aren't propping themselves up just yet and have often already lost the "curl" factor that is so adorable in newborns.<br>

The best positions are sometimes achieved when being held in a parents arms. If you are taking the photo, have baby's dad hold your baby and "pose" the baby for you. If dad is wearing a black shirt it looks really good with a black backdrop - the focus is on the baby and on dad's loving hands. The baby can lie on daddy's arm, be cradled against his chest, etc etc. All shots of babies are just adorable.<br>

If taking pics of baby on his own, they can lie on their back or tummy on a soft warm surface. The baby might try to lift his head if on their tummy and you can get that shot in that split second. Close-ups of the face and feet are wonderful. Take photos of your baby asleep in his bassinet - make sure no distracting objects are in the shot and that the colors are neutral. Have baby hold your wedding rings while sleeping - (they naturally "grab" things at this age) for a really touching photo. I'm attaching a shot I did of my own baby at about one month.<br>

Finally, pose baby with the siblings, since he is your third. A photo of all of your children at once is the best of all.<br>

Good luck and happy photo taking :)</p><div></div>

<p>thanks for all the tips so far!!<br>

I have to say that whenever I do give a toddler something to do to keep them still, while they do stay in one place, I end up with a ton of shots of them looking down at whatever it is they are doing. Getting those shots of them looking directly into the camera is so tough. Unless I have someone helping me out to get their attention.<br>

BTW, I used the term bokeh to mean a good out of focus background, implying the use of a shallow depth of field and yet sharp focus on the subject (which usually doesn't stay put...)</p>

<p>Many photographers shoot a couple stops short of wide open as this is many times produce the best quality for that particular lens, so using a 1.4 lens does not mean you *have* to shoot with 1.4. <br />the 50/1.4 lens has been reviewed and compared to other lenses many many times (just do a search online) and you will find that the reason for owning it is not just for the ability to shoot with 1.4 setting. It can produce beautiful bokeh without shooting wide open that can be superior to other lenses with the same setting.<br>

Experiment with it to find which settings works for you and which styles you like. You can definitely use it to have the full face in focus and blur out the background.<br>

Selective focus can be an interesting creative tool and produce some dramatic shots, but usually the shots that clients want are ones with the full face in great focus. With this lens, you can have the range to do both.</p>

<p>Ok, need some tips from all you children's photographers!</p>

<p>I am a little stumped on whether it is at all possible to get "consistent" tack sharp images of toddlers who won't stay still and have a good out of focus background at the same time.</p>

<p>As you probably know, there is no such thing as posing a toddler. That 18month - 2 year range, they are always on the move, and on the move fast!<br>

What is my best bet of capturing a great portrait with tack sharp eyes/face and blurry background?</p>

<p>High ISO? (can get grainy)<br />Tripod/steady hands/IS? (no good if subject is moving)<br />shooting wide open for blurry background? (that much harder to get good focus on moving subject)</p>

<p>What is your formula that you use for toddlers? Especially when shooting outdoors where they are running about?<br>

If I had all the time in the world to frame and compose a shot, I bet I would nail it relatively well each time with time to meter, make the right settings, , use a tripod, frame the shot etc etc. But with a toddler, you only have a split second to capture a moment. All the proper procedures for portrait taking simply do not apply.<br>

When I shoot, I would take tons of shots and end up with a few "lucky" ones which are in perfect focus and such. But I am just wondering if there's a better way to go about it (better settings? better lens? better process?) to end with with more great quality shots.<br>

How do you do it? Please share the lens/settings you use and whether you have crop factor on your camera.</p>

<p>Any tactics to actually make a toddler stand still and "pose" would be even better ;) </p>