lamergod
New Member
Personally,I think it's a lil too narrow for me at 35mm for full baby shots.I've tried the 12-24 once and I think it's quite fine.I've seen a photographer on clubsnap that uses tokina 12-24 for portraits too
Lens for taking baby photos
- Thread starter vino7272
- Start date
- Status
Personally,I think it's a lil too narrow for me at 35mm for full baby shots.I've tried the 12-24 once and I think it's quite fine.I've seen a photographer on clubsnap that uses tokina 12-24 for portraits too
I will try my newly acquired 35mm for now. Guess if that still won't do then can't escape the wide angle as I always like the WA for reason I don't even know.
Saw those pictures on your page, very nice. Did you touch up any of them?
Last edited:
lamergod
New Member
thanks
which pictures?If it's the landscape,only the second last picture is with the 12-24,the rest are 17-50.Ya,did some curves saturation vibrance and all the basic stuff.Anyway,I've just remembered about taking pictures of babies.I don't really like to point my camera at the baby,so I work with a distance of 55-100mm to take pictures of my babies.But if I'd were to go near,I would use my 17-50 at ard 17-28 for full body.I did take some pictures of toddlers and I used my old 18-55 at a distance of 30cm apart which I think should be the distance you are taking pictures of your beautiful child.Not sure you can see it or not but http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=2945021&id=531729070
Just see how you go alot shooting your child.See if you like it at 35.Just one thing to note,when shooting wide angle,you get a different perspective which I think will be very fun to explore
congrats on your purchase. 1st thing u'll notice is the focusing might be slightly slower than the 50mm but its not a big problem. U'll love the lens becoz of the photos.
as for the wide angle, maybe u can try both 11-16 and 12-24 at the shop tat u gonna buy? I think u might find the 11-16 too wide... 12-24 sounds ok to me... best is 17-50 becoz u can cover a better range of zoom.
as for the wide angle, maybe u can try both 11-16 and 12-24 at the shop tat u gonna buy? I think u might find the 11-16 too wide... 12-24 sounds ok to me... best is 17-50 becoz u can cover a better range of zoom.
congrats on your purchase. 1st thing u'll notice is the focusing might be slightly slower than the 50mm but its not a big problem. U'll love the lens becoz of the photos.
as for the wide angle, maybe u can try both 11-16 and 12-24 at the shop tat u gonna buy? I think u might find the 11-16 too wide... 12-24 sounds ok to me... best is 17-50 becoz u can cover a better range of zoom.
Agree with you that 17-50 is a good range for me but just not sure is the 2.8 f/stop good enough for my low light shot? Have u tried them before in low night shooting at baby?
but the 11-16 is also 2.8 and 12-24 has variable aperture...
I think most lens would have problem handling low light shot. I shoot at ISO1600 f/2.8 under fluorescent lighting using 17-50 and can get blur when the baby moves. (ps: baby tends to move a lot... i understand )
if low light then just use ur 35mm prime. Its quite good in that. I can shoot at ISO1250 f/1.8 under fluorescent lighting. Otherwise, u have to use flash for better results.
I think most lens would have problem handling low light shot. I shoot at ISO1600 f/2.8 under fluorescent lighting using 17-50 and can get blur when the baby moves. (ps: baby tends to move a lot... i understand
)if low light then just use ur 35mm prime. Its quite good in that. I can shoot at ISO1250 f/1.8 under fluorescent lighting. Otherwise, u have to use flash for better results.
Use a kit lens for absolute flexibility in getting the angle you need, w/o stuffing the the camera into the baby's face (their behaviour will change). Kit lens bad in low light? I use a SB800 that is calibrated and bounce it off the ceiling or towards my back. Beautiful and natural!
Thanks for the suggestion and this is what my friend recommended me to do too but I'm reluctant to add more weight to the already heavy, imo, dslr body. I prefer to just shoot wit whatever light and hence the need of a bright lens.
Last edited:
Jerry Chan
Member
I got the 50 f1.4D and later bought the Sigma 30 f1.4. Both gave me good portrait shots of my children 6 mths to 4 years old. Try the Sigma excellent results. For portraits go for prime lens.
Derrick965
New Member
the 50 mm is already a superb lens for portraits. But for babies, I normally use the 105 mm macro lens (or the 60 mm macro which is a cheaper alternative). Even though you can be close to your daughter, try instead to stand a bit further back with the 105 mm macro, and you will see the result as compared to one taken with the 35 mm at close range.
diediealsomustdive
Senior Member
If I read you correctly you should for now stay away from the 11-16, 12-24 range. The wide angles you've refered to in your PNS days would be in the range of 24mm DX or 35mm FX. 11-16 and 12-24 are in the specialist ultra WA area and would take some practise to learn to use, and for environmental-story telling family shots, your likely range is in the 18mm to maybe 70mm range.
Your 35mm f/1.8G would be similar to 50mm on FX, and will continue to be tight for small spaces, like try to get the whole table in during a dinner.
If size is a constraint, you can, and perhaps should, get a 18-55 which sells for peanuts (not the NKF type) at BNS forum. Use it mostly for the wide end as an 18mm f/3.5 indoor and pop up your flash, and balance your ambient using M mode and boost the ISO to 800 or 1600 for those table shots. Continue with 35mm and 50mm for your portrait.
If you don't mind a slightly larger size, then the 18-70 would be a better choice, a bit pricier than 18-55 though.
Personally I mostly keep my 18-105 for functions where I may need the "reach" of 105 without changing lens. But will use my 18-70 when I am out and about, with other lenses as necessary. I have the AFS35 as well as the AFD50, plus others like 60 Micro, 105 Micro, 10-17 fisheye, 10-20 UWA, 70-300ED, etc.
Your 35mm f/1.8G would be similar to 50mm on FX, and will continue to be tight for small spaces, like try to get the whole table in during a dinner.
If size is a constraint, you can, and perhaps should, get a 18-55 which sells for peanuts (not the NKF type) at BNS forum. Use it mostly for the wide end as an 18mm f/3.5 indoor and pop up your flash, and balance your ambient using M mode and boost the ISO to 800 or 1600 for those table shots. Continue with 35mm and 50mm for your portrait.
If you don't mind a slightly larger size, then the 18-70 would be a better choice, a bit pricier than 18-55 though.
Personally I mostly keep my 18-105 for functions where I may need the "reach" of 105 without changing lens. But will use my 18-70 when I am out and about, with other lenses as necessary. I have the AFS35 as well as the AFD50, plus others like 60 Micro, 105 Micro, 10-17 fisheye, 10-20 UWA, 70-300ED, etc.
I have been shooting my 8months old son he was borned using 50mm lens. It is perfectly fine and fav lens to use to shoot my son.
you can see http://www.flickr.com/photos/sirswa/sets/72157621755771089/ all are done with 50mm
you can see http://www.flickr.com/photos/sirswa/sets/72157621755771089/ all are done with 50mm
I bot the 18-55 for the exact same reason u mentioned but it mainly serves as a backup or a day lens for me.
I would love to have this Tamron but heard this lens is slow. Do u think 2.8 is good enough for low light?
lamergod
New Member
17-50 at f2 8 and pretty bad lighting that i've shot,pump iso to 640 i can get pretty good shutter speed of ard 1/60,plus I'm using d200 so i'm very restricted by iso,but you are using a d90,fabulous camera,wanted to get one before I chose d200 because I'm doing sports,I can go to ISO 1000 and it's still good for d90
f
You can check out some shots I did under the events folio at my photologue
17-50 at ard 640 iso under worst than house lighting got some babies shot
Last edited:
May I know did u adjust your exposure compensation at all?
lamergod
New Member
Ya,usually I like to under expose 0.7 and up the exposure so to get faster shutter speed if im shooting under dark conditions
Try it out,you'll be quite stoked with this lens
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
