Good all around lense for baby pics...

[90sShooter]

Well I have a baby girl on the way, due in October! I am a picture taking machine these days and I plan on taking TONS of baby pics! If my budget permits I want to get me a nice all around lense for my Canon XSi to take portraits/wide angle type stuff. I am just in LOVE with my 100mm f/2.8 and want something that will take that caliber of picture without the 100mm, lol. O and of course with the baby on the way, it needs to be priced reasonably! I know that is lot to ask and you get what you pay for, but work with me...

TIA Beerguy and TS :beer:

 

[swjim]

What's your budget?

 

[90sShooter]

Well I paid $400 for the macro, so somewhere around there would be nice... Also checking craigslist to possibly pick one up used, just need to know which one I am looking for.

 

[Jacob D]

With your camera and the lens you already have I would suggest looking into the Canon 50/1.4

It's nice budget priced portrait and general use lens. The 50/1.8 is ultra budget priced, and a fun lens, but it struggles to focus sometimes. The 50/1.4 will be better in that respect and is better built all around. You'll love the ability to shoot wide open in natural light with your new one


By the way, wide angle and portrait lenses are usually not synonymous.

 

[90sShooter]

Thanks I will look into those.

Yeah I guess I didn't really mean "wide angle" I just want the focal length of like the kit lense where I don't have to stand 20 ft away to get a little background in the picture... lol.

 

[90sShooter]

Any other suggestions anybody?

 

[maroun.c]

Congrats on the Baby.
Not familiar with the Canon lenses lineup however If you don't ind a suitable range Canon lense with the desired focal length and budget I would suggest the Tamron 17-50 2.8. A bit plasticky cmpared to Pro Canon lenses however it is one of Tamro Pro lenses. being a 2.8 lense it will allow you faster shutter speed and shooting flashless or maybe with flash at reduced output which is always better with babies in order not to blast them with too much light. It is softer than the 50mm Nikon I have which is normal when comparing a zoom lense to a prime lense however you can always sharpen a bit i post processing. also the convenience of having a zoom is a plus especially in delivery room (if yuo plan to take pics there) one last thing I love about it and which makes me use it more than my Nikon 50 mm 1.4 and Nikon 18-200 VR is the closer minimal focusing distance which allows me to have the lense supported against the front glass and take pics of things in the front part of my tank. this allows me to get away without tripod most of the time.

 

[Rhizo]

+1 on the Tammy 17-50mm 2.8 I love mine

Never used the Canon 50mm 1.4. If its anything like the Pentax FA 50mm 1.4, I'm sure it wont disappoint

 

[reefman23]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15129019#post15129019 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Rhizo
+1 on the Tammy 17-50mm 2.8 I love mine

Never used the Canon 50mm 1.4. If its anything like the Pentax FA 50mm 1.4, I'm sure it wont disappoint

I have the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 as well and love it and I picked up a canon 50mm f/1.8 (only $85 brand new) and love it as well. I think both work great for portraits.

Jesse

 

[90sShooter]

Thanks guys! Both of those look like great options! That is exactly what I was looking for. Now the question is do I save $200 and just get the 50mm or should I spring for the Tamron. I have read reviews on the canon 50mm and all of them say, for $100 it is an amazing lense (though cheap build quality). Although I think a zoom lense will make more sense for what I want to use it for. Not to mention I can lose the kit lense...

What do you think?

 

[TitusvileSurfer]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15119937#post15119937 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Jacob D
With your camera and the lens you already have I would suggest looking into the Canon 50/1.4
......
By the way, wide angle and portrait lenses are usually not synonymous.

Its funny because I was going to recommend this lens, and make a similar snide remark at the end.

 

[TitusvileSurfer]

What you need to know about focal lengths and portraits is this:
If I take a portrait of you at 15mm, your nose will look bigger in the picture than it is in real life.

If I take a portrait of you at 50mm, everything should look about normal.

Above 50mm everything will sort of shrink in and most people would favor the portraiture from the higher focal length, everything else equal.

 

[maroun.c]

What I did was to go without a kit lense (you can always sell it if you already have it) then get the tamron 17-50 and the 50mm 1.4. You can always get the 1.8 to save some money. I think the 17-50 and 50 mm are very different, the 50 mm being a prime is sharper at all apertures than a zoom, so when shooting at darker places and trying to use less or no flash the 50mm 1.4 is used as at 2.8 it will be much sharper than the 17-50 when you close down a bit the tamron sharpes more and results are a bit closer to the 50mm prime then the ease of having a zoom is added so it makes it a better choice. As I said they're both different and I guess you'll endup having both at some time. one thing I really like about the Tamron 17-50 is how close it focuses so I can suppoort it against the front glass while taking pics which sometimes saves you from setting up the tripod just for a quick shot...