# Advice on lens to photograph my new twins...



## splproductions (Dec 14, 2011)

My wife just gave birth to a cute little boy and girl yesterday, and I'm thinking about possibly upgrading the lens on my Canon Rebel T1i since I have two very interesting subjects to shoot now.  

The lens I currently have is just the stock lens that came with the body (EF-S 18-55mm).  

To set up my question... I have run a recording studio for over 10 years and consider my skills, knowledge, and equipment top-notch.  I'm always having friends wanting to set up home studios ask me for advice on what gear to get.  They don't always understand that high-quality gear only gets you so far, and in many cases I could make a far better recording on their home equipment than they could make on my pro equipment.  

Now in relation to photography, I'm that friend who wishes he could buy a lens that will make his photos look awesome without needing years of photography experience.  Anyone looking at my photos can see I have an "eye" for composition, but I've never had the time to really learn what I'm doing.  Most of the time I end up just using the point-and-shoot mode, even though I have a rudimentary knowledge of how to use aperture, shutter speed, and ISO.  

My question is this:  If I buy a nicer lens, in the $200-500 price range, will I end up with photos that look any better than my stock lens?  Or will my lack of experience result in me getting photos that look exactly like the photos I'm already taking?

Any advice would be greatly appreciated!
(ETA: I had my eye on the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8)


----------



## thierry (Dec 14, 2011)

What I will say may be just a drop in the bucket with what others will have, but you should not invest in lens if you "never had the time to really learn what I'm doing." Take the time out to go through your camera manual and learn about your camera. Then I would suggest working on compostion and understanding lighting and the basic concepts of photography. Try and pick up some info from around here. I would suggest you read a book also that is called Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson. It would be well worth your time and a good place to start. Anyone here will tell you the same. 

Amazon.com: Understanding Exposure, 3rd Edition: How to Shoot Great Photographs with Any Camera (9780817439392): Bryan Peterson: Books


----------



## MTVision (Dec 14, 2011)

splproductions said:
			
		

> My wife just gave birth to a cute little boy and girl yesterday, and I'm thinking about possibly upgrading the lens on my Canon Rebel T1i since I have two very interesting subjects to shoot now.
> 
> The lens I currently have is just the stock lens that came with the body (EF-S 18-55mm).
> 
> ...



A new lens isn't going to make your photos any better. You can take AMAZING pictures with your kit lens if you know what you're doing.


----------



## splproductions (Dec 14, 2011)

thierry said:


> What I will say may be just a drop in the bucket with what others will have, but you should not invest in lens if you "never had the time to really learn what I'm doing." Take the time out to go through your camera manual and learn about your camera. Then I would suggest working on compostion and understanding lighting and the basic concepts of photography. Try and pick up some info from around here. I would suggest you read a book also that is called Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson. It would be well worth your time and a good place to start. Anyone here will tell you the same.



I've been through the camera manual a few times, and I do own that "Understanding Exposure" and have read about half of it.  So I guess I'm not a total newbie.  But I wouldn't consider myself a "photographer"... I have a long way to go before I'd call myself that.


----------



## petto (Dec 14, 2011)

I also am new to photography and purchased the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 as we had had family pics done a few months ago and that is what the lady used and the pics came out great.  I am just now starting to play around with it but it seems like a decent lens.


----------



## MTVision (Dec 14, 2011)

splproductions said:
			
		

> I've been through the camera manual a few times, and I do own that "Understanding Exposure" and have read about half of it.  So I guess I'm not a total newbie.  But I wouldn't consider myself a "photographer"... I have a long way to go before I'd call myself that.



I would stay with the kit for now and learn how to use the camera. That way you will also have a better understanding of what you want. 

On another forum this person wrote about how she was at a basketball game and this lady had a 70-200mmf/2.8 lens which is like 2400.00. She was complaining because it was so highly recommended yet the pictures weren't any better. She was using auto. A better lens isn't going to do anything except give you more pictures like you already get using auto. Honestly, save your money until you actually outgrow that lens. Better equipment does not necessarily equal better photos. The photographer is what makes amazing photos.


----------



## Sammie_Lou (Dec 14, 2011)

I would take the time to learn your camera with the kit lens while your children are still pretty much staying in one place and sleeping all the time. By the time they're old enough that you need something faster, maybe you'll be able to really put it to use and get your moneys worth out if it.


----------



## DiskoJoe (Dec 15, 2011)

get the tamron 17-50mm f2.8. Its just like the 28-75 you want but the wide angle will come in very handy with children.


----------



## radiorickm (Dec 15, 2011)

OMG........ The OBVIOUS answer here 



A TWIN lens camera..........LOL

Sorry......just had to do it.....a photography joke....


----------



## analog.universe (Dec 15, 2011)

I'm going to be the odd one out here.  You already know that you need the knowledge to get the best from your equipment, so lets not go there.  The kit lens has lots of limitations.  Even wide open, the aperture doesn't open that wide, so it's terrible in low light and gives you very few options concerning depth of field.  Sure you can get good pictures with it.  But you can also mix good tracks on a Behringer, doesn't mean you're not strongly limited by the equipment.  Instead of another zoom lens that covers roughly the same range as the lens you have... maybe consider a really fast prime?  Primes are much sharper for the money, and the better ones are more than just "accurate".  Just like a nice tube mic preamp, they add a little bit, they don't just reproduce, and you have more creative options.  (Not to mention excellent sharpness and accuracy when you need it).  Consider maybe a 50mm 1.4?  They're quite affordable, and shot wide open, you won't be able to mistake the photos as having come from a kit lens.  The shallow depth of field at 1.4 is a compositional tool in itself.  A 1.4 also eats so much light, you'll be able to shoot in most conditions without a flash.


----------



## Railphotog (Dec 15, 2011)

Instead of a new lens I'd suggest a Canon 430EX II flash unit with a diffuser.  I use mine all the time taking photos of our grandkids.  With the flash pointed up the diffuser spreads light all around, making look like a flash was not used.  Stops action too.  Got my Sto-Fen clone diffuser on eBay for around $5.00, shipped.  One of my most appreciated camera accesories.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Dec 15, 2011)

Welcome!  I have these 3 girls.  BigMike the moderator has twins as well.


----------



## Big Mike (Dec 15, 2011)

Welcome to the forum.

Congrats on the twins, mine are 8 months old today.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .sorry, I dozed off for a minute there.  :er:

On one hand, I agree with those that say to learn what you can, with the gear that you have.  The 'kit' lenses aren't that bad really, but they do have their limitations.  The best time to buy new gear, is when you clearly understand the limitations of your current gear and you're buying something to overcome that limitation.  

But on the other hand, I'll have to agree with Mr. universe....we already know that the major limitation of the kit lens, is that it's maximum aperture is only F3.5-5.6.  That doesn't let in much light, so it forces you to use a slower shutter speed, which makes it harder to get sharp photos.  By getting a 'faster' lens (larger max aperture), you give yourself the option to let in more light, which can mean faster shutter speeds, which means sharper photos.  Also, a larger aperture gives you a shallower Depth of Field, which opens up new creative possibilities that you just don't have with the kit lens.

Another option for you, might be to buy an accessory flash (if you don't have one already).  The ability to bounce light off of walls or the ceiling, can make for great photos.  If you got a flash, you may not need a faster lens, as the flash can help to get sharper photos.  But if you want the option to shoot without flash, in many situations, then that's where a faster lens comes in.

I currently have the Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 and I used to have the 17-50mm F2.8.  For your camera, I'd suggest the 17-50mm, but that's up to you.
The 50mm F1.8 is a decent lens for a great price.  The optics are great, but the build quality is rather cheap.  The 50mm F1.4 is a much better lens, a little more expensive but still a good value of quality for your dollar.  Although, some think that 50mm may be a bit too long on a camera like yours.  You might prefer something like the Sigma 30mm F1.4.


----------



## KmH (Dec 15, 2011)

analog.universe said:


> Consider maybe a 50mm 1.4?  They're quite affordable, and shot wide open, you won't be able to mistake the photos as having come from a kit lens.  The shallow depth of field at 1.4 is a compositional tool in itself.  A 1.4 also eats so much light, you'll be able to shoot in most conditions without a flash.


Many that lack a good understanding of how to do photography using wide aperture 50 mm lenses often post here because they are having focusing difficlties.

The issue has to do with the ultra shallow depth-of-field these lenses can produce which really requires more than point and shoot skills to use well.


----------



## splproductions (Dec 15, 2011)

What about the Sigma 50mm 1.4?  DPReview seems to think it is slightly superior to the Canon 50mm 1.4, especially in regards to sharpness at lower F-stops.


----------



## Big Mike (Dec 16, 2011)

I've also heard great things about the Sigma 50mm F1.4.  It's supposed to be really sharp.  The only bad thing about it, if you can call it that, is that it's 3 times the size of the Canon 50mm F1.4.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Dec 16, 2011)

I would also recommend a flash.  I think for Canon, the 480ex is probably the cheapest that will get you all the options you don't even know you need, yet.

Being able to add flash, bounce it off a ceiling or wall, and control the lighting is, IMO, imperative, especially with kids indoors.  FWIW, my second was born this Monday.

Congrats.


----------



## cameraland (Dec 16, 2011)

I am in agreement about getting a good flash for the camera with a diffuser. My wife has the eye for photography, but no interest in learning about f stops or shutter speeds. She uses what I put on the camera and her pictures are always terrific. A good flash will make all of the colors pop. If you look at a photo taken with the built in flash and one with a better flash you will be shocked.


Joel Paymer
Camera Land
Cameras, Binoculars, Spotting Scopes, Rifle Scopes - Camera Land NY
cameraland@aol.com


----------



## splproductions (Dec 16, 2011)

Hey everyone,

Thanks so much for the advice!  I ended up ordering the Sigma 50mm 1.4.  It should be here tomorrow.  I had the 430EX II in my cart, but decided to hold off on that for now.  A lot of the things I've been reading regarding newborn photography has said to use only natural light, and no flash, if at all possible.  If someone here feels differently, please chime in. (I was thinking that maybe once they start moving around I'd pick up the flash?)

I've got a place in my house where I think I can set up a little "home studio" that should allow some nice diffused light to come in.  I might rig up some DIY lighting from Home Depot with "daylight" bulbs, and diffuse it with some bed sheets or something, make some makeshift reflectors, etc.  I'll see what I can come up with.  But I'm hoping to find a good slightly overcast day with enough light coming in that I don't need anything.


----------



## analog.universe (Dec 16, 2011)

splproductions said:


> Hey everyone,
> 
> Thanks so much for the advice!  I ended up ordering the Sigma 50mm 1.4.   It should be here tomorrow.  I had the 430EX II in my cart, but decided  to hold off on that for now.  A lot of the things I've been reading  regarding newborn photography has said to use only natural light, and no  flash, if at all possible.  If someone here feels differently, please  chime in. (I was thinking that maybe once they start moving around I'd  pick up the flash?)
> 
> I've got a place in my house where I think I can set up a little "home  studio" that should allow some nice diffused light to come in.  I might  rig up some DIY lighting from Home Depot with "daylight" bulbs, and  diffuse it with some bed sheets or something, make some makeshift  reflectors, etc.  I'll see what I can come up with.  But I'm hoping to  find a good slightly overcast day with enough light coming in that I  don't need anything.



Congratulations!  I've heard awesome stuff about that Sigma from everyone who has one.

Flash  is great if you learn how to use it properly off camera.  Just buying a  speedlight and popping it on the camera is better than the built in  flash, but not by much.  Also, the 430EX has a lot of features that are  cool but aren't really necessary.  My flash setup is two LumoPro manual  speedlights and radio triggers, and the whole lot costs really close to a  single Canon E-TTL flash.  Check out Strobist if you ever wanna learn about flash technique on the cheap.

The point that KmH made about shallow depth of field at 1.4 is a good one.  You do need to be a little more careful about where you place your focus point at this aperture.  (most of the time you just want to focus on the nearest eye)  And you don't really need to be at 1.4 unless the light demands it or you want the specific shallow dof effect.  You'll still get lovely bokeh from that lens at ~f/2-f/4 but you'll be able to get more of your image in focus.

Have fun!


----------



## Kerbouchard (Dec 16, 2011)

splproductions said:


> I had the 430EX II in my cart, but decided to hold off on that for now.  A lot of the things I've been reading regarding newborn photography has said to use only natural light, and no flash, if at all possible.  If someone here feels differently, please chime in. (I was thinking that maybe once they start moving around I'd pick up the flash?)



Well, I do disagree about not using flash with newborns.  Just about every good newborn photographer I know uses a studio setup with flash and I've done it for my kids.  Now, there is a difference between bouncing a diffused light off a ceiling/using a softbox or umbrella and firing a flash directly at the newborn.  Firing a flash directly at anybody is usually a bad idea, not necessarily because of any injury, but because the photos will look like crap.  My thoughts are the standard disclaimer of not using flash is kind of along the same lines as the disclaimers on hot coffee.  You shouldn't poor it in your lap, but you can still drink it.

In any case, if you have an area of your house where you can set aside a place with nice diffused lighting, I would generally prefer that type of setup to a flash, but for me, the flexibility to take the shots in the crib, or bassinet, or when big sister comes over to help with a bottle, etc make it where my flash never leaves my camera.

Anyway, congrats on your purchase.  There isn't necessarily any one right way to do anything.  Lots of ways to take shots that work and the 50mm 1.4 should open up a few options for you.

FWIW, when my first was born, I chased the same thing you are chasing.  I also went the fast prime route at first.  Didn't get the results I was looking for and when I got a flash and learned how much of a difference it makes, a whole new world opened up.  A few years later, I now have the experience where I can appropriately use that fast prime and know when it's the best option, but I still use flash more often than not.


----------



## Big Mike (Dec 16, 2011)

I agree with the posts above.

If you have a nice fast lens like that, you should be good to shoot with window lighting.  A good spot may be putting them on a bed, in a room with a large(ish) window.  You don't want direct sunlight coming in, but a sheer fabric would help if it is.  

You will certainly want to pick up a flash...someday.  As mentioned, it's not all that much better if you just stick it on the camera and fire away, but the big benefit of something like the 430EX, is that you can tilt & swivel it, to allow for bouncing the light off the walls & ceiling etc.  That will hugely improve your light and it's a technique that you can use to shoot your kids for the next 50 years.  Also, it's a lot quicker and easier than setting up a studio every time you want to take photos of your kids.  

Getting the flash off-camera, as mentioned above, is certainly going to open up all sorts of creative options...but it is more 'advanced' and does require more time & effort.  And if your twins are anything like mine, you'll be short on free time and energy for a long while.  :er:

As for using flash with babies...I don't have a problem.  It may bother them (a little) but I won't do them any harm...just don't blast them right in the eye with a full power flash...that's not good for anybody


----------



## splproductions (Dec 16, 2011)

Alright... alright... I just bought the flash with the Stofen Omni Bounce.  Is anybody going to recommend I return the Sigma and get the Canon 50mm 1.2L?  

J/K - I think the new lens and flash will help me get where I want to go.  Thanks everyone!


----------



## Robin Usagani (Dec 16, 2011)

LOL @ Stofen Omni bounce.


----------



## splproductions (Dec 16, 2011)

Schwettylens said:


> LOL @ Stofen Omni bounce.



Bad choice?  I'm a noob... someone fill me in...


----------



## iresq (Dec 16, 2011)

Just a quick congrats on the twins.  Have twin 13 year old boys (and a 16 year old son).  Having twins is not twice the work.  They will quickly get on the same schedule.  Change 1 diaper? Might as well change 2.  Feed 1, might as well feed 2.  And the bond between them will be incredible.  Good Luck!


----------



## Big Mike (Dec 16, 2011)

> Having twins is not twice the work


That's true....it's 4 times the work.  :shock:    :cry:


----------



## Kerbouchard (Dec 16, 2011)

splproductions said:


> Schwettylens said:
> 
> 
> > LOL @ Stofen Omni bounce.
> ...



It's just not necessary.  A ceiling or wall makes a much better bounce surface than any of the gimmicky attachments that are sold.  They are all pretty much a waste of money.

For more reading on bounce flash, check out the planet neil blog.  Probably the best resource on the net on how to effectively use flash.  http://neilvn.com/tangents/flash-photography-techniques/1-natural-looking-flash/


----------



## unpopular (Dec 16, 2011)

All I can suggest is that you get a Twin Lens Reflex.


----------



## splproductions (Dec 16, 2011)

Kerbouchard said:


> splproductions said:
> 
> 
> > Schwettylens said:
> ...



Thanks - I will definitely start reading that blog.  Good thing I only paid $10 for that!



unpopular said:


> All I can suggest is that you get a Twin Lens Reflex.


LOL!


----------



## Big Mike (Dec 16, 2011)

Well, the Sto-fen does have a place when it comes in handy.

When you aim the flash up to the ceiling for bounce, the angle of light hitting the subject is now from above...and like midday sunlight, it can cause raccoon eye shadows.  So what the sto-fen does (what most flash accessories do) is to split the light.  It lets most of it go up for the bounce, but it throws some forward to help fill in the shadows.  It may also spread some light in all direction, so that it bounces off of walls etc.  That's all well and good when you're in a small or medium sized room, but outdoors or in a large room, they are just a waste.  But the problem that 'most people' seem to have, is that they just use it all the time, because they think it always helps.  
And another 'problem', if you will, is that you can basically get the same fill light while bouncing by strapping a white business card to the back of the flash.  

I'd suggest seeing what you can do just bouncing without it, then try it on.  Just remember to think about when it's helping and when it's not.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 16, 2011)

*Twin-lens reflex*


----------



## unpopular (Dec 16, 2011)

HAHA Derrel. We think alike


----------

