• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

New baby soon - new lens?

W

whoiswes

Senior member
Hi all,

My wife and I are expecting our first child next month, and I was thinking of buying a new (faster, sharper) lens to capture all of the firsts that will be coming very soon. I don't do alot of candid/portrait shooting so I'm not really sure what works best in these situations. I would expect that I'd be shooting in fairly low light and don't want to use flash for the most part.

My current gear:

Nikon D90
Nikon 18-105 kit lens (f/3.5-f/5.6)
Nikon 35 f/1.8
Nikon SB-600 flash

I was thinking of grabbing a 17-55 f/2.8 or potentially going with something wider (10-20, 12-24, etc). I really like my 35 f/1.8 and would definitely consider a wider fast prime - I don't think 35 is going to be quite wide enough for most of the shots I'll want.

Budget is $1000, prefer to stay under $500 if possible.

Any other advice would be appreciated - thanks in advance!
 
Is there any reason that you dont want to use flash? Even with f 1.8 your still going to need to shoot with high iso and low shutter speed. I would personally think that bouncing the flash would provide a cleaner sharper image.
 
elitejp said:
Is there any reason that you dont want to use flash? Even with f 1.8 your still going to need to shoot with high iso and low shutter speed. I would personally think that bouncing the flash would provide a cleaner sharper image.
Click to expand...

Figured it would be easier on mom and baby, especially when they're asleep. Plus I like closeups and detail shots with natural lighting.

Not saying I'll never use flash, just that I see myself NOT using it more often than not....of course, that may be just wishful thinking
 
Agree about no flash. I would be looking at a decent f/1.4 prime - probably 50mm. For portraits you don't want wide.
 
Last edited:
You could also consider a diffuser to make the light softer and not disturb them while they are sleeping.

The only problem I see with buying an f1.2 or 1.4 lens is that the depth of field is going to be so shallow that you will have a hard time getting both mother and child both in focus. If that isnt an issue for you then really you just need to find a focal length that you like and then start your research from there. You do have the 18-105 that you can you can use to see what angle you prefer for the shots you want. Most sigma wide angle primes are quite nice as are the nikons. If you are looking for a uwa zoom then the tokina 11-16 2.8 is extremely good.
 
35mm f 1.8 will be the lens you use most of the time, and perhaps a fast (50mm f/1.4~1.8, or 85mm f/1.8) when the child is a year or older so that you don't crowd the child space.

Try not to use flash, but diffuse & bounce should be okay.
 
I used a flash, with a diffuser. I do not agree with flashing a bright as heck light directly in a baby's eyes but bouncing a flash is fine. I bounced the flash, with a diffuser on it. This should soften the light enough that it doesn't hurt the baby or disturb the mother or child. You'd still want a lens that performs well in low light.
 
Have you thought about a Macro lens for capturing the little details like feet, hands, bottles, and binkys?

Or maybe the 70-200 2.8 VR for close candid shots where you can stand farther back w/o scaring/surprising the baby. Not sure they can be found for <$1000 unless you go with a Sigma/Tamron.
 
have 2 kids. my first i used a regular kodak digital camera for the first few months. once my wife got the iphone 3g i used that until i got a 3GS.

had a htc inspire for the last 6 months but going back to iphone just for the camera

carrying a nice camera and lenses is the last thing you want to do with all the baby crap you have to carry around the first year or so of their life. and my phone is almost always close by making it easier to catch spontaneous cool moments
 
Your 35/1.8 should be up to the task for most purposes. Finding a wider prime with f/1.8 or larger aperture will be difficult and expensive. The only thing I know about is the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 (which I owned and enjoyed, but which is not appreciably wider than your 35mm) but going down to 24mm, 20mm, etc. gets you well into the pro-level glass (i.e., over $1000). In fact (*browses the Nikon website*) the 24mm f/1.4 is the *only* Nikkor prime wider than 35mm with aperture less than f/2.8, and it's $1900.

The 17-55 is a great choice, but you will still probably find yourself reaching for the 35mm in low light. My thoughts would also gravitate to an 85mm prime or the 105mm Macro.
 
twistedlogic said:
Have you thought about a Macro lens for capturing the little details like feet, hands, bottles, and binkys?

Or maybe the 70-200 2.8 VR for close candid shots where you can stand farther back w/o scaring/surprising the baby. Not sure they can be found for <$1000 unless you go with a Sigma/Tamron.
Click to expand...

The ultimate way to troll your son "his was so tiny, I had to pull out a macro lens" afterwards your kids thanks you for showing that picture and telling that story before he goes off to prom/wedding/dates/school/every day ending in "day", etc.
 
oogabooga said:
The ultimate way to troll your son "his was so tiny, I had to pull out a macro lens" afterwards your kids thanks you for showing that picture and telling that story before he goes off to prom/wedding/dates/school/every day ending in "day", etc.
Click to expand...

I need to send this to my wife - she would look over and say "you're not getting a macro lens because that's EXACTLY what you'd do".

Thanks for the input everyone - I'm going to see if any local shops have a 17-55 and/or the 10-20 and get a feel for both.

We also have a Lumix P&S that takes lovely pictures (in good light) and that'll be our out-and-about cam. Maybe I could convince the wifey that a nice ILC micro 4/3's should be in our arsenal....
 
I got a dslr setup to take pictures of my little one.

I used to find my 50mm 1.4 useful, but now I pine for a 35mm 1.8, as the 50mm is just too close indoors.

Now if I'm indoors, 99&#37; of my pictures are taken with the 18-55 kit lens, a $45 yongnuo flash, and a gary fong lightsphere. It's all manual for the flash, and I do make the mistake of under/over exposing on occasion, but I consistently get great pics.

Outdoors, I'm almost always using the 55-200 kit lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top