Lenses

[avro707]

And Policar, tripods are very useful in many applications. I don't know where you're getting the "of little use" part but even with IS I find that I often need a tripod or monopod when using heavy teles.

I don't believe that is in the context that the OP would be using them - since even a 70-200 or so is not a particularly heavy telephoto zoom, and the heavy telephotos are very expensive.

However, I do agree that tripods are still useful, especially for fashion/people photos. I tend to use multiple flashes a lot and a camera on a tripod with a wireless remote trigger, and the camera controlling the group of flashes.

Bokeh (or depth of field blur) is one of the nicest things to play around with, especially in portrature. You can achieve some lovely effects with that - and it really helps to highlight your subject and separate them from the background.

And after that, flash-photography at night with reverse-sync is another nice one to learn, especially against a cityscape background with lots of DOF-blurred lights.

 

[Policar]

OP, you could consider getting a 17-40mm f/4L USM. The 17-55mm has comparable image quality though...

And Policar, tripods are very useful in many applications. I don't know where you're getting the "of little use" part but even with IS I find that I often need a tripod or monopod when using heavy teles.

Sure, tripods are great for plenty of things, but for baby photos with a fast wide lens? For casual photography, they just aren't as necessary as they used to be. Most people recommending tripods are stuck in a film-centric mindset (or, in cases such as your own, are being pedantic gear-hounds--who shoots baby photos with a huge telephoto lens; certainly not a beginner with a t2i)? I get that they have a place; it's not here.

The 17-40mm, while competent toward the center and only noticeably terrible on full frame is really garbage next to the 17-55mm, which is a stop faster and effectively three stops faster with IS taken into account, plus it's sharper and with less distortion. Furthermore, 40mm f4 isn't an appropriate setting for portraiture whereas 55mm f2.8 will work in a pinch on APS-C so you've got an incredibly versatile lens, appropriate for landscapes, portraits, whatever in a pinch. The 17-40mm is good at nothing in particular except being an affordable ultra-wide for full frame, but even then it's not great unless stopped down and corrected for distortion. The 17-55mm is so much better than the 17-40mm it's almost embarrassing--unless you need weather sealing or shoot full frame and are willing to stop down to f8 and then correct distortion in post, in which case it's a fine choice next to its too-expensive competition.

 

[Prodo123]

Sure, tripods are great for plenty of things, but for baby photos with a fast wide lens? For casual photography, they just aren't as necessary as they used to be. Most people recommending tripods are stuck in a film-centric mindset (or, in cases such as your own, are being pedantic gear-hounds--who shoots baby photos with a huge telephoto lens; certainly not a beginner with a t2i)? I get that they have a place; it's not here.

The subject is small and you're shooting portraits; you want to minimize the shake as much as possible, especially with long portrait lenses like a 70-200. And believe me, the IS works reasonably well but it has its limits, especially in the 160mm+ range on a crop... Seeking greater depth of field, especially since the subject is small, is also a reason to use a tele over a standard. Please, don't tell me you go around calling anyone shooting with a telephoto a pedantic gear-hound?
Also, that's why I recommend the 24-70 over the 17-55; it has the reach into the good, long portrait range whereas the 17-55 stops short of it. Also, with the 0.17x MM, he might not be able to get a close-up of the shot; in this respect the kit lens outdoes both the 24-70 and the 17-55, but still the 17-55 is a slouch in this area.

I would not recommend the 17-40 either; I only mentioned it if the OP was interested in FF anytime soon. Which still doesn't justify getting it over the 17-55 or the 24-70.

Then there's the 15-85, which I am very disappointed in. If only it had a constant aperture! If not for its variable aperture, that lens would be the perfect lens for the occasion.

As for an off-camera flash, that might wake the baby up

 

[Policar]

I shoot a fair amount with a 70-200mm f2.8 (on a tripod, no less) and I'm a pedantic gear-hound, so it comes from knowing the territory.

Really, that's fine and technically very sound advice, just not for a beginner who's looking to shoot baby pictures. And if 70mm is what you need for a portrait (which it isn't, 55mm is fine on APS-C, especially for a baby), are you really worried about close focus at 17mm?

The kit lens is pretty darned good though! I would keep it for its performance on the wide end and add on a 50mm f1.8 for shallow focus. That's a pretty decent kit for very little money and the t2i's decent high ISO performance and 50mm's speed and kit lens' excellent IS will do fine in most natural light.

 

[snberk103]

^

Mostly good info, but a bit outdated: except for specific purposes, tripods are of little use with today's sensors (which are a few stops faster than film for equivalent grain) and with lenses equipped with IS or very fast lenses. ....

With respect, I disagree. Today's zoom lenses are generally at least 2 stops slower than the "outdated" pre-zoom lenses of yesteryear. The image stabilization technology simply brings the modern zoom lenses back to where they were before zoom lenses became ubiquitous. One of the exceptions is a IS tech on a relatively fast prime lense. That is an amazing feature... though my understanding is that IS can often cause a softening of the image. I don't have/use IS, so this is not from experience and from reading reviews.

A tripod does more than allow for slower shutter speeds, it also forces a slower way of composing and thinking about the photo. In that sense I think they are a necessary tool for someone learning the craft. My mantra is to assume that I will use a tripod, unless there are reasons not to. And often those reasons mean that I take the majority of images without the tripod... but my starting point is to start with a tripod. A good compromise is a monopod. Obviously there are some areas of photography where a tripod is never a good idea. I don't think the OP is in those areas yet.

 

[OreoCookie]

The kit lens is pretty darned good though! I would keep it for its performance on the wide end and add on a 50mm f1.8 for shallow focus. That's a pretty decent kit for very little money and the t2i's decent high ISO performance and 50mm's speed and kit lens' excellent IS will do fine in most natural light.

I agree, the 50 mm is a good candidate. I would also like to suggest you have a look at Sigma's 30 mm f/1.4, it's my always-on lens. The focal-length is in my opinion better suited if you want to shoot mother and newborn, for instance, rather than the portrait of a single person.

The subject is small and you're shooting portraits; you want to minimize the shake as much as possible, especially with long portrait lenses like a 70-200.

I don't think the 70-200 coupled to a crop body is very useful for indoor portraits (I own a 80-200 mm f/2.8 Nikkor). A 70-200 mm coupled to a tripod would be even less useful, unless you want to arrange a shot. Also, the big tele zooms are slower than primes, so I'd rather recommend a prime than a zoom.

Also, that's why I recommend the 24-70 over the 17-55; it has the reach into the good, long portrait range whereas the 17-55 stops short of it.

55 mm corresponds to ~80 mm on film, a perfectly viable focal length for portraits.

A tripod does more than allow for slower shutter speeds, it also forces a slower way of composing and thinking about the photo. In that sense I think they are a necessary tool for someone learning the craft.

I agree that slowing down can help you become a better photographer, and that tripods can be very useful to coax out optimal image quality. But the OP wants to make baby photos, that's hardly an area of photography I would associate with tripods. I'd rather want them to be spontaneous and not planned through.

 

[ocabj]

A tripod is nice to have, but not a necessity for general portraits.

I only use tripods when shooting portraits if it's a very specific shot I'm getting. Otherwise, I'm constantly moving and changing angles and don't want to be stuck on the tripod. I may use it for one shot, but then I'll quick detach and move. If I'm shooting really thin, like f/1.2 to f/2 and need to nail focus on the lead eye, then I'll go with the tripod.

But the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II handheld? No problem. I shoot it all the time handheld at the 5D Mark II and Mark III sync speed of 1/200sec, indoors and outdoors with strobes and nail focus and sharpness. I'll even handhold the 5D Mark II or III with the 70-200 *with* an ABR800 at 1/200sec.

 

[ChrisA]

I agree, the 50 mm is a good candidate. I would also like to suggest you have a look at Sigma's 30 mm f/1.4, it's my always-on lens. The focal-length is in my opinion better suited if you want to shoot mother and newborn, for instance, rather than the portrait of a single person.

I'd say that is sound advice. 50mm is about the right length.

What many beginners don't understand is that distance and distance alone determines perspective. Perspective is the ratio if the size of foreground and background objects. Choose the subject to camera distance based on the perspective you want. Then you use the zoom to control what is in and out of the frame

So many beginners don't move when they shoot and will use a long lens to save from walking a few steps but the effect is not good and you get a "flat" non-engaging image.

Also, who suggested a 17mm lens for baby photos? That is borderline "nuts". I know the current trend/fad is to get in tight and use a wide angle for an "in your face" perspective that is a bit distorted. Those image sell but NOT id a baby is the subject

For babies I actually put a small soft-box in a flash bracket. I think you will quickly find that "lighting matters"

 

[OreoCookie]

Also, who suggested a 17mm lens for baby photos? That is borderline "nuts". I know the current trend/fad is to get in tight and use a wide angle for an "in your face" perspective that is a bit distorted. Those image sell but NOT id a baby is the subject

Especially mommy won't appreciate the distortions, I think she'll be much more vocal in her objections

 

[equilibrium17]

Yeah, get the 50mm/1.8 "Nifty Fifty" to start with, and use it to learn what's it's like to work with a lens that gives you wide aperture options. Then, after you've used the 50mm for a bit, you'll have a better idea how much aperture you really need for what you want to do, what other focal length(s) (and/or zoom range) you want to have, etc.

And in any event, as noted, 50mm on an APS-C sensor is a pretty good focal length for portraits, so you can get good shots with it if portraits are your primary interest. Eventually, you'll want more options, but this will get you started.

I have a T3i, and my first purchase after I got the Camera w/ the 18-135mm kit lens was the Nifty Fifty. I definitely don't regret it. I'm by no means an expert photographer (I'd classify myself as an advanced beginner), but working with the 50mm/f1.8 has taught me a lot about composition, working with aperture, etc. Now that I've used this lens for a while, I have a MUCH better idea of what lenses I want to set aside money for in the future. I think it would have been a bad idea to blow a lot of money of a bright zoom lens right away -- lacking experience, I might have purchased something I didn't really want or need. And bright zooms are EXPENSIVE...

I got mine used, in very good condition w/ 90-day warranty for $75 from B&H. Can't beat that.

 

[breezie]

Here's my choices below. I'd personally grab a 17-55mm f/2.8 for the versatility and a 35mm f/1.4L or 30mm f/1.4 Sigma for portraits. I feel that the ~30mm range is better suited for a crop sensor camera like yours since it's closer to a 50mm equiv on a full frame camera. 50mm on crop in small rooms (like hospitals) may prove difficult for framing shots!

Prime Lens

(1) 40mm f/2.8 (I think this one is a better value on a crop compared to the nifty fifty below)
(2) 50mm f/1.8 (1.4 if you can afford, 1.2L if you're rich)
(3) 30mm f/1.4 (sigma)
(4) 35mm f/1.4 (if you're rich)

Normal Zoom

(1) 17-50mm f/2.8 (sigma)
(2) 17-55mm f/2.8 (canon -- awesome lens, crowd favorite, and personal pick)
(3) 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 (not as good in low light so get a flash)

 

[sflarc51]

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM - The most useful lens you could ever buy.

Without explaining why, this is the most useless suggestion possible. Seems to me you were more interested in being the first to respond than being the first to respond with a thoughtful, meaningful and intelligent response.

The 24-70mm is without a doubt very capable and will be useful for many, many years. Another suggestion would be the 50mm EF f/1.8. At ~$110 it is the best bang for the buck lens Canon makes. Sure it doesn't zoom but the 1 1/3 stops faster means blurry backgrounds and better low light performance. And since you are photographing a baby, the lack of zoom is next to irrelevant - it's not like the little one is going to be moving around so fast that the composition of the photo will be constantly changing.

Zooms are great, primes are great. When placed in context for their purpose and properly used they'll both produce stunning results.

 

[snberk103]

.... And since you are photographing a baby, the lack of zoom is next to irrelevant - it's not like the little one is going to be moving around so fast that the composition of the photo will be constantly changing.
....

Actually, that is a really good question that needs to be asked... when the OP says 'Baby' photography, what age are we talking about ? Different people may mean something different re: the age, and therefore the mobility.

....
I agree that slowing down can help you become a better photographer, and that tripods can be very useful to coax out optimal image quality. But the OP wants to make baby photos, that's hardly an area of photography I would associate with tripods. I'd rather want them to be spontaneous and not planned through.

Depends on the style of photographer. Ann Geddes not only uses a tripod, she sets up the baby shot like a commercial shoot. Note that she has also put the subject inside a light tent in this photo.

 

[equilibrium17]

OP specifically stated kid was a newborn, so the kid ain't goin' anywhere on his own for a few months, at least.

And he also said he's a beginner. And he's the dad. Even if he wanted to go to the trouble and expense, he's going to have a lot of other things to worry about besides setting up tripods, flashes, light tents, etc.

I really think getting the inexpensive 50mm prime *to start* is the way to go. It's a very small investment (esp. if you buy used), and between this and his existing lenses, he'll be able to figure out what he likes to shoot in terms of focal distance and aperture. Then he can make a more serious glass investment once he has a better idea of what he's going for. This will also help inform him as to what other accessories he might need to get the shots he wants - tripod, speedlites, etc. Better to build incrementally.

 

[rubsal70]

Wow!!! I just want tot say thank you!!! All of you were very helpful. I know it is a lot of info that I was given and I can always come back to re read it and keep on learning from it. I dont think I have been to a forum where so many people were able to help and without sarcasm. I have other forums for hunting, shooting, etc and sometimes they are jerks when I ask questions.... Well thank you so much guys. I think today I will be going to see if a I can find a used 50mm lens if not than a new one will be ok. Like I said b4 Thanks for all your help.....

 

[mustang_dvs]

Wow!!! I just want tot say thank you!!! All of you were very helpful. I know it is a lot of info that I was given and I can always come back to re read it and keep on learning from it. I dont think I have been to a forum where so many people were able to help and without sarcasm. I have other forums for hunting, shooting, etc and sometimes they are jerks when I ask questions.... Well thank you so much guys. I think today I will be going to see if a I can find a used 50mm lens if not than a new one will be ok. Like I said b4 Thanks for all your help.....

I think a fair number of people missed the word newborn.

Get the 50mm f/1.4.

You'll want the extra light, as you absolutely don't want to use a flash around a baby for the first 6 weeks of life. And you really should avoid it for the first 6 months, if possible.

A 50 (which has roughly the same FoV as the human eye, on a FF camera), will distort a face a bit more than the 85mm, which is an ideal portrait length. (So, if you see a deal on an 85 f/1.8 -- snatch that up.)

As for purchasing -- Canon's refurb store is a good place to start, especially with Photokina coming-up, they're tossing out 15% and 20% discount codes ever other week, of late. Else, KEH.com may be worth looking at. (Remember: it's never too early to start saving for college.)

Oh, and Congratulations! on the new baby.

 

[equilibrium17]

A 50 (which has roughly the same FoV as the human eye, on a FF camera), will distort a face a bit more than the 85mm, which is an ideal portrait length. (So, if you see a deal on an 85 f/1.8 -- snatch that up.)

Note he also stated that his camera is a T2i, which has a 1.6x crop factor. So the FoV for the 50mm lens on his camera is roughly equivalent to an 85mm lens on a Full-frame camera. Like you say, ideal medium portrait length.

Personally, I'd buy the cheaper 50mm/f1.8 and if I really felt the need to spend more money on lenses put the couple hundred bucks saved towards another prime lens to give me another option, such as something around 30mm for a normal perspective.

The 50mm/f1.4 is definitely a better lens than the f/1.8 (and not just because it's a bit brighter). I'm just not sure it's really so much better that a beginning photographer will notice a difference. But if your wallet is feeling heavy and/or you find one for a good price used, go for it.

 

[ocabj]

Note he also stated that his camera is a T2i, which has a 1.6x crop factor. So the FoV for the 50mm lens on his camera is roughly equivalent to an 85mm lens on a Full-frame camera. Like you say, ideal medium portrait length.

Personally, I'd buy the cheaper 50mm/f1.8 and if I really felt the need to spend more money on lenses put the couple hundred bucks saved towards another prime lens to give me another option, such as something around 30mm for a normal perspective.

The 50mm/f1.4 is definitely a better lens than the f/1.8 (and not just because it's a bit brighter). I'm just not sure it's really so much better that a beginning photographer will notice a difference. But if your wallet is feeling heavy and/or you find one for a good price used, go for it.

I owned both the 50mm f/1.8 II and the 50mm f/1.4 in the past when I was still using APS-C. To be honest, I don't think the f/1.4 is that much better than the f/1.8 II in terms of image quality in practical use. If a person has an extra $250 or so to burn, then get the 50mm f/1.4 for the better build quality. But I think the 50mm f/1.8 II is still the better buy due to the high cost to benefit ratio for the OP, especially coming from the OP's existing lens kit.

 

[jdavtz]

A 50 (which has roughly the same FoV as the human eye, on a FF camera), will distort a face a bit more than the 85mm, which is an ideal portrait length. (So, if you see a deal on an 85 f/1.8 -- snatch that up.)

That's not correct. The "distortion" is related to the perspective, which is a function of camera-subject distance, not the lens attached to the camera. ChrisA mentioned this earlier in the thread.

Why not find a life-size doll and try taking some photos of it with your current lens, and see what your main problem(s) is/are?

Personally speaking, the best shots of my baby have been taken with 50mm on full-frame and 23mm (35mm FF equivalent) on APS-C. I'd vote for shorter rather than longer focal lengths if you want to convey a sense of intimacy with the baby, or between mother and baby, but why not try it out with a doll or a friend's baby with your current zoom, take shots at different focal lengths and subject-camera distances and see what you like.

 

[neutrino23]

I'll suggest that you start taking pictures really quickly. It's amazing how quickly kids grow and change.

Also, try to get a couple of good lights and something to spread the light. Any good photography book from the library will teach you about lighting. Good lighting helps an enormous amount. It always drives me nuts when I'm asked to take family pictures at my mom's house where she has the lights dimmed down becase she likes the mood.

You can do pretty good lighting without spending a ton. Search the web on this topic. Brighter lights help the lenses and camera work much better. Use white or colored poster boards to bounce light off of and to fill shadows. Try a few test shots with teddy bears or dolls then put your child in the scene when you've got it figured out.

Have fun.

 

[OreoCookie]

Depends on the style of photographer. Ann Geddes not only uses a tripod, she sets up the baby shot like a commercial shoot. Note that she has also put the subject inside a light tent in this photo.

My point exactly: can you imagine the OP carrying all those strobes and stuff to take a picture of mother and child in the hospital bed?

 

[ChrisA]

...
You can do pretty good lighting without spending a ton. Search the web on this topic....

There is a lot you can do with just a sheet of 8.5 x 11 inch printer paper. I use this all the time to soften the light from the built-in flash. I can bend it with one hand. make the light much softer.

Next step up is the while translucent milk jugs. Make a flash defuser that can be rubber banded to a flash unit and used for bounce.

Or you can place the entire flash inside a 1Gal jug and make a mini-softbox.

For DIY studio shots you can make a light tent with a few yards of white nylon rip-stop.

If you can afford, or justify the price of a nikon or canon dedicated flash buy the old work-horse a Vivitar 285. These are $100 and "way powerful" and reliable. Not better value for $100. They have been making these things for 20+ years.

You can make asophisticaled studio lighting setup for not a lot. A few of the vivitar flashes and aluminum foil and cardboard and white nylon

Lighting really is what matters, you be surprised how well an empty milk jug works.

 

[compuwar]

You'll want the extra light, as you absolutely don't want to use a flash around a baby for the first 6 weeks of life. And you really should avoid it for the first 6 months, if possible.

Please substantiate this statement with a credible medical reference.

Paul