REVscene - Vancouver Automotive Forum

wasabisashimi · 10-22-2013, 11:50 AM

Hi, I am new to DSLR.
I have a 2 yr old, I like to take picture of him, but he runs around alot, cant stay still.
I bought a flash gun to do bounce flash indoor.

My question is : which lens is better for taking good picture of him.

85mm f2.8 or 35mm f1.8 . They are both fast lens and sharp, but I have APS-C crop sensor DSRL. I am pretty sure 85mm will be useless indoor.

But I already have a 24mm F2.8 for indoor. Is the 35mm f1.8 redundant?

Soundy · 10-22-2013, 12:01 PM

You generally want a mid-length lens for portrait-type shots - too long, and faces look flat; too short, and you get a warped, fisheye-type effect (big nose, small ears). On 35mm film (and full-frame DSLRs), 100mm has typically been considered an "ideal"(ish) focal length for portrait work; on a crop sensor, 85mm will be just about right.

inv4zn · 10-22-2013, 12:42 PM

Why not go for something between 35 and 85?

85mm on a crop is too tight indoors, and at 2.8 it won't be as usable as some of the faster primes. The 35 is good, and i prefer it actually, but it does have its limits as well.

I donno what camera you have, but the Sigma 50mm 1.4 sounds like a good lens for you. Not terribly expensive either. They have some issues with front/back focus, so buy it locally even if you spend a few extra bucks, so you can get easy exchanges.

Taken from Sigma website lol

Razor Ramon HG · 10-22-2013, 12:54 PM

I personally find the 50mm and 85mm a bit too close indoors.

I rather have something wider since I can easily crop into the photo. I personally really like the 35mm focal length, especially on a crop sensor.

If you pick up a 35mm, I wouldn't say that would be redundant. In my opinion, the difference between 24mm to 35mm is more significant than say 35mm to 50mm.

If you are not sure, I would recommend you borrowing someone's 18-55mm kit lens to see which focal length suits you best.

gars · 10-22-2013, 01:19 PM

+1 to Razor said. Try setting your kit lens at 35mm and just taking shots indoor. I think that 50mm is too long unless you want to just focus on the face - you probably want some environment shots of him playing on his toys, etc.

v_tec · 10-22-2013, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soundy

On 35mm film (and full-frame DSLRs), 100mm has typically been considered an "ideal"(ish) focal length for portrait work; on a crop sensor, 85mm will be just about right.

OT. But aside from child/baby photography indoor. Is 60mm on a crop sensor ideal for portrait?

GS8 · 10-22-2013, 08:37 PM

35mm 1.8 will not be redundant indoors because the lens is faster. That alone makes it a viable option.

Also, 60mm is fine for portraits but indoors, you may have some issues getting a good frame of your subject. I have a 50mm on my 7D and will tell you it can be tough getting portraits of children who are basically living wind up toys.

davidhtam · 11-07-2013, 08:12 AM

I had a 24-70L before and used it religiously at 70mm on a crop sensor. I rarely used that lens at the wider range, but that's due to the nature of my work.

When I switched to full frame, i sold the zoom and bought a 50 1.2L and that is the lens that sits on my camera most of the time. Mainly because what you see is what you get.

When I'm shooting portraits, I use the 85, when I'm doing candids and what a tight shot, I use the 135 and when I want to get up close and personal and add a bit of distortion and have a super shallow DOF, I use the 35.

Every lens has a different purpose. On your crop body, a 35 will resemble a 50 on FF. IMO, I think 50mm is the most versatile focal length.

Traum · 11-07-2013, 09:00 AM

I don't understand. You have a kid and he runs around a lot. Why force yourself to put up with the limitations of a prime lens when there are all sorts of zoom lenses available? They would be far more suitable for your purposes.

I know prime lens have much better image IQ. But who cares about IQ when you can't even get your composition right?

If you have a Canon, go for the 15-85. It'll cover all the focal lengths you'll ever need. If that one is a little too pricey for your needs, go for a 18-135 instead. (But the IQ will be noticeably worse.)

davidhtam · 11-07-2013, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Traum

I don't understand. You have a kid and he runs around a lot. Why force yourself to put up with the limitations of a prime lens when there are all sorts of zoom lenses available? They would be far more suitable for your purposes.

I know prime lens have much better image IQ. But who cares about IQ when you can't even get your composition right?

If you have a Canon, go for the 15-85. It'll cover all the focal lengths you'll ever need. If that one is a little too pricey for your needs, go for a 18-135 instead. (But the IQ will be noticeably worse.)

IMO, zoom lenses are the biggest limiters when it comes to composition. People get lazy when it comes to zoom lenses and forget that each focal length has it's own purpose or character.

When I sold my zooms and switched to primes, I started using my legs more and found new approaches and angles to take photos at. My compositional skills sky rocketed and I started taking better photos.

Also, the zooms you listed are HUGELY limited by their maximum aperture. They're super slow!

For $200 more than the 15-85, you could get a sigma 35mm 1.4, which is a magnificent lens!

Traum · 11-07-2013, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidhtam

IMO, zoom lenses are the biggest limiters when it comes to composition. People get lazy when it comes to zoom lenses and forget that each focal length has it's own purpose or character.

When I sold my zooms and switched to primes, I started using my legs more and found new approaches and angles to take photos at. My compositional skills sky rocketed and I started taking better photos.

Also, the zooms you listed are HUGELY limited by their maximum aperture. They're super slow!

For $200 more than the 15-85, you could get a sigma 35mm 1.4, which is a magnificent lens!

The zoom vs prime debate is never going to end, but I would like to ask, when it comes to shooting a little kid that's running around all the time, are you going to be faster getting into position for the shot? or are your fingers going to be faster on the zoom ring?

Also, I would never blame the person with the zoom lens for being lazy. It isn't the zoom that's making the person lazy -- it's the person being lazy that makes him lazy.

You are entirely correct that zoom lenses are much slower. Personally, I find that the slowness can be mitigated by higher iso (which are quite usable in dSLR from this day and age -- the same can't be said for dSLR from 10 years ago) and liberal uses of the flash gun (which the OP is already using). Additionally, large apertures also result in extremely shallow DOF -- that is probably something not ideal when you try to shoot a kid running around.

For the OP, I hope he has at least considered the merits of a zoom lens and weight them against the qualities that a prime offers.

wasabisashimi · 11-07-2013, 03:23 PM

Hi, I kind of rule of zooms for indoor, becuase I cant get a good shot with aperture f3.5 even with very steady hands. The Baby moves way too much for a good shot.

I use zoom in broad daylight when it is sunny. I am looking to see if 35mm f1.8 would be better/faster compare to my 24mm f2.8 indoor. I know 24mm is easy to frame a shot and sometimes I have to get real close and it is not good if baby sees me with a huge DSLR in his face.

I took a look at most of my shots on the computer, they are all within 50mm. Some 28mm, some 24mm and some 35mm

inv4zn · 11-07-2013, 10:08 PM

lol it's been almost 3 weeks - you haven't decided yet??

What's your budget?