ken_adams4

<p>Lenses are funny - a great lens is a great tool, the photo quality relies on both the gear and the photographer. We each have our own favorite lenses for different applications. And so here I am still lost on which lens "I would prefer" for newborn photography, not knowing as I haven't done a lot of newborn photography, and relying on others. It's the infamous debate of lenses, through this thread and others, I've seen "I always shoot newborns 50mm 1.8" vs "I would never shoot newborns with 50mm", and "24-70 is the way to go" vs "you want open and fast with shallow DOF". I am, respectfully, still very confused. I "feel" 2.8 wouldn't be shallow enough for "amazing"/"perfect" newborn photos. And if that is the case, I think the 50 1.2L or 85 1.2L would be the lens to go with (shooting at ~1.8). As you said though Ian, you wouldn't recommend it. Hm, now I'm not sure where to go with my newborn lens.</p>

<p>I received the Canon 50 1.8 STM today. It seems like a nice lens, but as far as sharpness goes, it's not at the same level as the 24-70 2.8L. Of course for a $125 lens. Beautiful bokeh. </p> <p>The 85mm 1.2L is on my wishlist already for weddings. But for natural light newborn photography, would it get me too close?</p>

<p>Fred - that's an excellent, excellent point, and extremely well written. You're right - quality of gear is important, but what's more important, and sometimes my extreme self-critical-ness of my photos get's in the way, are the moments, the people, the memories. <br> Thank you for the friendly reminder, honestly. That is much needed, especially for me, from time to time. </p>

<p>Thank you all for your responses, and thanks for the congratulations :)<br> The newborn photography book I've been reading, would definitely recommend it, is on Amazon called "Natural Newborn Baby Photography". Being able to search the text using Kindle, I'm able to find the captions of every single photo sample the author included in the book. 99% of her photos were taken with her 50mm lens at f 1.8. And her photos are amazing. Not saying you can't get the same quality at other apertures, but I am saying she knows what she's doing. This motivated me to get a prime with an aperture larger than 2.8 (either of my zooms). <br> Thanks Greg for your mention of the Canon 50mm STM - I hadn't even seen that one yet. Doing some reviews and lots of research, it came out just a month ago (May 2015), and at the same price point ($125) has a lot of new upgrades, including quieter AF, 7-blade aperture vs 5, potentially slightly sharper images than the 1.8II, metal mount vs. plastic, etc. So, I got that one! I'm excited for it. <br> My only worry, though, is that, especially because this is my child, and our first child, and I don't want to screw things up, let alone the pictures since that's my thing, would I be "ruining" my newborn photos using the Canon 50mm 1.8 STM vs. if I paid more for the Canon 50mm 1.2L? Would the pictures come out significantly different (worse)?</p>

<p>Thank you both for the notes and the congrats :) We are SO excited!<br> Despite my wedding work, I actually do not own a 50mm yet (I know, I know). My thought is that if a fast 50 is better for natural light newborn photography, I can get the 50 1.2L and also use it at weddings (not sure how yet tho, I love my zooms). My greatest hesitation is this comparison tool showing the 50 1.2L vs the 24-70 2.8L:<br />http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=403&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=787&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0<br> The 24-70 looks immensely sharper than the 50 1.2? Even if you change the aperture to 2.8 on both lenses, the 24-70 still looks sharper? But I've heard so many good things about it?</p>

<p>I'm a professional wedding photographer. I use a couple of Canon 5D Mark III. We have our first child expected soon! :) Tons of new research and gear, I love it all. But, I'm really struggling on my main lens. For formal newborn shoots, I plan on setting up indoor natural light portraits for the little guy. I already have the 24-70 2.8L, and am reading a ton in a Newborn Photography book I bought about the 50mm 1.2L. Since I already have the 24-70, is the 50 1.2 worth it? 2.5X more stops is nice, of course, but would I even be shooting below 2.8? Cause if not, it's not worth it. Any other newborn photographers out there? Do you shoot wider than 2.8?</p>

<p>I've heard good things about Premier Elements, Pro, and Pinnacle. What software do you use for editing your professional wedding videos?</p>